tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 17, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EDT
environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania! >> every minute of the republican and democratic party's national convention on c-span, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> tonight on c-span2, part of this conference from the network of enlightened women. a former writer for margaret thatcher talks. and the u.s. commission on civil rights issues a ruling on the rights of transgender students in public schools. at this year's network of enlightened women talk about student debt and campus codes. there is a q&a session with author and bloger katie pavlich. this is an hour and 45 minutes.
hi, everyone. i am meagan keenan and i am a writer and editor for red alert. if you have not heard of red alert it is a website for news and opinions for young conservatives written by young conservatives. we are a publisher of the weekly standard and focus all of our reporting on next generation issues. we also take articles and editorial contributions from young journalists, actvist and professional from all over the country. the political correct campus culture is a subject we write about and how often students are
reluctant to express their conservative views in the classroom. the rise of trigger warnings, micro aggression in the past few years, have led many, including president obama to criticize the coddling of our college students. another topic we study and report on almost every day is student loan debt. the average college graduate owes almost $30,000 in student loan debt. the millennial generation are struggling to payback the loans and put off making adult decisions and purchases like buying cars and homes until they are financially independent. these trends are likely to have long-term economic consequences if we are unable to get the situation under control. with that said, i look forward to hearing from these knowledgeable panelist about how our colleges andb universities fail our younger generation and
what steps can be taken to improve the situation. i will read their bios. we have lindsey burke who researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the education policy at the heritage foundation. she devotes time and research to two critical areas of education policy; reducing federal intervention in education and in empowering families with education choice. her research and op-eds have appeared in various magazines and she has spoken on education reform issues across the country and internationally. she has appeared on numerous radio and television shows and published evaluation of school choice programs and options for public policy foundations such as the virginia institute for public policy and the freedman foundation for educational choice. she has a bachelor in politics from roanoke, virginia and a master teaching degree in foreign education from the
university of virginia. she is study education policy at george washington university. and sterling beard is next to her. he spent time as an editorial associate for national review online and a staff writer on the hill where he served as the lynn fellow. he regularly appears on fox news, fox business and other outlets to provide current event analysis on college campuses. and finally, we have the director of litigation who graduated from george mason school of law after a career as a service officer. she served in moscow before and after the fall of the ber lin wall. after law school, she clerked on the significance th circuit court of appears before joining seth johnson llc and joined the
appellate group at the u.s. trustee program at the department of justice and joined robert h jackson as the legalal fellow and took over the day to day management of what is now stand up for free speech litigation project. she is an adjunct professor at george mason and lives outside of washington, d.c. >> great, thank you, megan. so the title of our panel today is trigger warnings, safe spaces, and college debt. how colleges are failing america. right? so pretty big topic but i want to start, how did we get to the point where we even have a conversations about safe spaces and universities? i think there are a few things at play, right? you will hear more from sterling and kathleen about the climate
and how academics at large is responsible for the climate. but i want to start with two other issues that i think are often perhaps not attributed to the climate we see today. the first is this open stiget of federal subsidies that flow to universities today. and the second, and this might be controversial, but the fact that college students maybe have too much free time on their hands. i will take both of those in order. but on the first point, this idea that we have anope spigot of federal aid. we spend 238 billion annually at the federal level on federal student loans, grants and tax deductions to finance higher education. 238 billion annually in federal funding. 33 billion of that is the federal pel grant program and pell grants are grants so they don't have to be repaid but they
are geared toward students from low-income families. and that has been targeted low-income students but in 2007 changes to the pell grant law meant we have seen the number of recipients double over the past few years. the federal government also now manages and originates 93% of all student loans in the country. we do not have a private lending market in the u.s. anymore. what does it mean if the federal government is managing and o originating the loans? it means when the students default the taxpayers are on the bend for paying for them. an analysis was put out and it
was found that for every one dollar subsidized student loans are increases there is an increase in tuition. when you are getting a pell grant or student loan that benefit is focus on the recipient. tuition increases are spread across everyone at the university. so even if the student isn't a recipient of the aid they feel the increase in tuition. so we have seen this tremendous increase in federal subsidies. one of my colleagues, richard vitter, talks about how the federal government shovels money out of airplanes at colleges and universities. what is the outcome of this? have we seen college prices go down? no, we have not seen the cost
reduced whatsoever. since 1980, tuition feeze at public and private universities have grown twice as fast and avenand average student loan debt is 30,000 and it is far greater for many. in an economy where you went to college and obtained the degree, it can mean not being able to afford to buy a home, buy a car, we hear of people putting off marriage because of their student loan debt. when you take that together, we know that college loans make about 1.3 trillion. an overall outstanding debt in the country. that is more than credit card debt combined. with the federal government
managing 93% of the loans, a big portion of the 1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, when it goes into default gets picked up by taxpayers across the country. cost subsidies. i want to go through what impact of this ever increasing subsidies race has created. what we have seen first is that really easy access to federal student aid, loans and grants have led to administrative bloat. not some, but a good amount of administrate bloat in higher education. just a couple points on that, a study from the gold water institute came out, a think tank based in arizona that found from 1993-2007 the number of full time administrators per hundred students grow 93% and the number
of employees actually engaged in teaching instruction only grew by 18% over the same time period. so a significant increase in non-teaching administrative staff over that time period. that same study found that in 2007 it took 13.1 more employees to educate the same number of students than it took in 1993. again, a lot of that is driven by non-teaching administrative staff increases. the reality is that american universities today are made up of less than half of their employees being teaching faculty and staff. the second, another impact of the federal subsidies race is that students are incurring debt to do what i see an arm race.
we see facilities having plush facilities. you hear about the lazy rivers at the universities all of the time. one midwest university dispensed 21 million to build a new gym that includes an elevateded track for running and jogging and a 22 person hot tub. college rank looks at universities with the nicest and most plush facilities in the country. they found one school in the south where students can quote enjoy some of the best competition pools in the united states, hot tubs, steam rooms, water falls and you can make your way to truman pond which is a campus beach club which is the perfect place to relax in the sun while listening to music and socializing with students. federal debt is driving a facilities arms race no doubt
about it. third, another problem with federal subsidies, it is financing questional research. this is no small thing. you might thing facility arm races are not a big deal but when you consider some of the questionable research taxpayer dollars are funding at university, you will probably hear more about this, but it should get your eyebrow up. there was an academic paper published and i think it won the award for the most ridiculous research paper of the year. it was entitled, glaciers, gender and science, a feminist framework for global environmental climate change. anybody else heard of this? a feminist glacier framework. the paper emerges feminist post colonial science studies and
feminist ecology. it has gender, power and dynamics in systems leading to a just and equitable science and human ice interactions. it is not satire. it sounds like it would be satire. what you would expect research to look like. but this was published in a journal and not only that it was published with taxpayer dollars through a grant from the national science foundation. facilities arm race, questionable research and the last thing i want to point out is this ever increasing flow of federal subsidies to university has, i would argue disinnoce disinnocent -- disincentivizes student.
if you look at data coming out from the bureau of labor statistics, we know how college students spend every single hour of their day. it is instructive. the bureau of labor statistics looked at full-time college students, during the week, they work on average 3.3 hours per day. those 3.3 hours include not only studying but going to class as well. that is it. 3.3 hours per day for your average full-time college student. and of course, there going to be elite institutions that work more than that but on average. they spend less time in clas and studying than high school students do. so one could make the opportunity there is probably the opportunity for college opportunities to be doing more work. our higher education system is
not working well for students. it is expensive, it is passing on significant cost to taxpayers, but it is also not preparing students. the six-year graduation rate is 60% and four year is 40%. that is an abysmal figure. but all universities that receive federal funds are acc d accred accredited. so the college of profitable, a great organization, found 514 red flag universities across the country where students have a better chance of defaulting on student loans than they do graduating. all of them are credited by an
arm of the federal government essentially. if you go there, you are more likely to default on your student loan debt than you are to actually graduate from school. one answer i would say is limiting federal subsidies to colleges and universities. not increasing them. allow a robust private market of lenders to reform and come back into the market. a robust market of private lenders would be a far better arbitration on student loans. they will pea able to take into account your major, your likelihood of repaying your loans, your credit worthiness and things that can get you a better interest rate than a uniform rate from the private government. allow a private lender and gasp
have college students do a little part-time work to pay for their undergraduate. i will turn it over to sterling. >> i am a partner of the grassroots organization that was one of the oldest and trained well over 100,000 activist, conservative and libertarian activist. campus reform's mission is to expose liberal bias and abuse on college campus around the country and i am willing to bet the vast majority in the room -- i see this young lady smiling -- some form of liberal abuse and bias whether it be in your textbooks, professor's lectures or just your peer's attitudes. this is the sort of thing we see
every day at campusreform.org. we had a member of our campus correspondent program who attended mount holy oak college in massachusetts. she joined the campus correspondent program and wrote wonderful stories and broke news about mount holy oak's theater board, i believe it was, canceling the production of the vagina monologues because it failed to recognize not all women have vaginas. you can laugh. it is okay. it is a funny story. i bet you didn't expect to hear that today. she had stories on how there is a ferguson protest around mount holy oak where white students were discouraged from participating. all of that she did wonderful jobs on those stories, got the facts checks, did a great job and created national news out of those stories.
the mount of hatred she got from the women of mount holy oak was disgusting. i am sure most of you have heard of yik-yac. there was a mount holy oak confessional site and she was torn to shreds. they called her every single liberal insult you can imagine they threw out at her. they took shots at her personal appearance as if that had anything relevant to do with it her stories. one student tried to bring her up on an alleged honor code violation. and that only happened after a legal demand letter was sent and thankf thankfully they dropped the charges. she transferred to the university of new hampshire and now she is a legislative
representative in the house of new hampshire at the age of 19. she is far from the only one. another student on the other side of the country, jacob ellenhorn, at the university of southern california which is a private university despite its name. he had to deal with an impeachment effort. he is a member of the student senate and students didn't like the fact he was talking to campus reform or even he that he was letting us know things about going on on the campus. they were trying to get his stipend taken away as well. it got so bad that a student wrote an editorial in the paper asking senators not to impeach hem because it proves his point about his campus being liberal and incredibly bias. that is the sort of thing we deal with every single day. that is not the only thing.
we have dealt with stories about textbooks that said things like president ronald reagan was a sexist who saw women's role being domestic and never appointed women to positions of decision making authority because apparently sandra day o'connor doesn't count. that was in a textbook in the university of south carolina. if you name a university, there is a good chance we have done a story about them. some are bad repeat offenders. mount holy oak, and even at the university of new hampshire where she ended up going, for a brief time they had a bias-free language guide on the university website and after we reported on it they said it wasn't policy but it warned against using the word american because it ignored the fact there is north, south, and central america and this is
an act to erase people from canada and everywhere else. this is how far down the rabbit hole it goes. that is the sort of thing we see every day. it is sick situation you have. so many colleges put emphasis on social justices or advancing these liberal priorities they are not teaching students how to learn anymore. they are teaching students what to learn and what to think but not how to think. that is the problem we see every single day. i guess that wraps it up for my little presentation. i will hand it off to you, ma'am. >> thank you so much. my name is catherine i work for the foundation of individual rights and education known as fire. we are a non-partisan, non-profit group with a very narrow mission and that is to protect first amendment free speech rights on college campuses as well as due process rights as well.
i have worked with some of you in helping get your schools back on track should we say. one of the things f.i.r.e is most concerned about is a the speech code. universities don't have a place in the handbook saying this is the censorship part. here we will list everything you cannot do. instead they have rules that appear to be neutral but in fact really have a negative affect on your right to express yourself. the most notorious is the so-called free speech zones. it has nothing to do with free speech. these are tiny areas of campus where students are quarintined.
you have to sign up to say what you are passionate about. the most notorious case was in college at modesto junior college. an army veteran wanted to hand out copies of the constitution on constitution day. he lasted ten minutes before a security guard came up to him and told him he could not do this because he was not in the free speech zone and he needed to go sign up for that. there is somebody with literally the first amendment in his hand and saying it says i can speak freely in the open area and the security guard saying that is the constitution. what i have that is backing me
up are school rules so get with the program. he came to us and he actually filled, well, supported him in filing a lawsuit, and not surprisingly the school backed down and changed the policy and got to pay attorney fees and damages as well. so that was very satisfying. [laughter] >> but the problem with the sort of administrative bloat and that these administrators have to do something all day and what they do is write these rules. not only does that affect your ability to express yourself and to tell other people what you are passionate about but it also sends a message to the entire
campus that censorship is okay and that dealing with difficult ideas, dealing with things you don't want to hear, that an acceptable way to get around that is to insist that the person with a different point of view be quite. and i think there is a strong connection between that and the other phenomena we are seeing. so the idea of a safe space. safe spaces make perfect sense. n.e.w is probably a safe space and it is probably empowering to get together with fellow conservatives and discuss policy and your life on campus. that is freedom of association.
that is something that is very important to society. the problem is when groups of students try and impose the rules of their safe space on everybody else. we at fire say a safe space is an important shield. college could be overwhelming. particularly the first couple years. you want find your peeps, and a safe space, if you want to call it that, is a great way of doing that. but it can not be a sword. you cannot take your views of the world and try and enforce them on other people and announce that the people that disagree with you are somehow dangerous or making you feel insecure and therefore they should be silenced.
trigger warnings also sort of can go both ways. a trig warning that is offered by a professor, for reasons make sense. there is material out there that students should be able to prepare themselves to see. i remember, many years ago, watching a film about growing up in post-war germany and in that film they had raw footage of the liberation of auswitz and that is something i will never forget. would it have been nice to have been warned? yes. i remember it decades later.
it made a tremendous impact on me so maybe that is what the teacher was after. but that was her decision. trigger warnings become a problem when students say i don't want to confront this so i don't want to confront sexism or i don't want to confront racism so tell me when it is coming so i know when to skip class or i know to ask for an alternative assignment. that frankly guts the purpose of the university. the purpose of university is to go and be challenged, to confront ideas that you haven't heard before, that you might think are disturbing but to do it, if i may, in a safe space of the classroom with your peers
and a professor who knows the material and has been training on how to teach it. so, and the other problem with a mandatory trigger warning is it has a terrible affect on academic freedom because it is telling a professor this the way you have to teach the material. not the way you think would be most effective from a petagocal stand point. trigger warnings at the discretion of the professor, sure, why not. trigger warnings as a mandatory? no. and if any of you come across that as far as i know, no
university has adopted a mandatory trigger warning. if you hear of it we are at www.thefire.org and we would love to hear about that or any other time your voice is stifled. we are non-partisan. what your passionate about is for you to decide. we are hear to make sure your voice can be heard loud and clear. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to our panelist and now i want to open it to you guys. so anyone with a question raise your hand. we have a microphone coming around. >> i am emily hall. i am a member of the new chapter at harvard.
i am wondering if any of you have advice on how to attract people who might not be conservative but might be pro-free speech for getting involved with new? >> when it comes to getting people involved who not be conservative or libertarian you don't pitch it in ideology terms. you pitch it, harvard, correct? >> yes. >> so you pitch as, say i will spit ball here, harvard has produced supreme court justice, members of congress, presidents, and you know, here is the cause free speech is dying. then you hook them in with say free speech as an issue because free speech ideally should be a
non-partisan issue. unfortunately it has become a partisan issue. but if you could find someone who is intellectually open enough and says i like the idea of free speech disagreeing with what you say but defending to death the right to say it. if they are ideology open to it bring them into the conservative world view and here is what conservatives believe out xyz. maybe the group has more, i am a dartmouth grad, you are a harvard grad, anyone from yale in the audience? >> i qualify. >> i was going to say let's beat up on yale but maybe not. to give you an example, at yale a while back, i believe last fall, there was somebody who went to yale and had a petition they would go around and on hidden camera ask students to sign this petition to repeal the
first amendment which, this is yale, it has produced again presidents, supreme court justices, members of congress and fine attorneys who actually understand the first amendment, but they were petitioning away their rights to petition. that is the danger students have right now. if you can hook a lot of students in on a non-partisan issue, be it free speech or something, get them in the door and make the conservative pitch afterwards. >> if i could add quickly to that, unfortunately the one truly bipartisan issue, is the desire to censor people. we see that on college campuses all of the time. we have worked with students, a young woman in texas who was told she needed special permission to talk about guns and she probably couldn't get it. this was when there was
legislation on concealed carry pending in the texas legislature. we also do battle on several campuses with schools that do not want to let the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws have a pot leaf on their t-shirts. apparently civilization as we know it will end if normal is allowed to use that moniker to indicate they believe passionately in the legalization of marijuana. so i think when you are reaching out to other groups, the chances are that they have bumped into the same kind of bureaucratic roles that you have. so there is a you know report there. debate is wonderful.
just getting together and sponsoring some kind of discussi discussion. it can do opening up a dialogue because part of the problem is everybody is in their safe spaces trying to pak their safe space everybody else's safe space and not talking to each other. >> hi, i am nicole from washington university, which is a very small, conservative school in virginia. i was wondering how you think about allowing freedom of speech, even within a conservative campus, that shuts it down? >> so washington and lee administrators are shutting --
can you give an example? >> at washington and lee we have had a lot of political strings going on specifically about the presidential campaign. a lot of time the administration shuts down any dialogue either conservative or liberal on either side of the issue because they are afraid of starting something. over half of the campus, about 87% of them identify as republican. they are afraid of our school being labelled as a conservative school even though the administration has put out a washington and lee is republican campaign. they are going against their own campaign there. so my question is how do you allow for the freedom of speech even within the conservative movement that may be trying to limit it? >> i am guessing that what the ad mministrato administrators are doing is they are concerned about their tax
exempt status and they are worried that partisan political discourse will somehow jeopardize that. that is nonsense. we see this all of the time, particularly in election years, where administrators want to keep things quite on campus so they are like we would love to let you table for bernie sanders or we would love to let you hand out flyers for trump. but we just can't. nobody, and more importantly no one at the irs, thinks that students speak for the university. student political speech is, you know, it is the fundamental first amendment right when you are on a public college campus. so if they are shutting down
that kind of speech i would contact fire. we, on our website, have a guide to speech in the political campaign year. you can download that and hand it to them and say now i am off to table for whoever it is you want to table. if you still have problems, you know, we will support you in your effort to get them to see the light. as i said, particularly in an election year, there is -- i can barely think of anything that is closer to the core of first amendment to who should be president. >> you may look into starting a school newspaper. there are quite a few schools out there with alternative conservative papers that
challenge the prevailing narrative. usually you would not see them at wnl because the campus is overwhelmingly active but wouldn't mean you would not object to high fees. the leadership offers a student publication work shop and if you want to get the people out there, start the paper, call it general lee and put the dukes of hazard on there to see how many administrator's heads you can make explode. fairly rarely will a university attempt to shutdown a student newspaper because the last thing they want to do is get the attention of shutting down the freedom of the press. the press tends to take care of its own very strongly. so you may want to look into doing something like that as
well. >> hi, my name is amanda, i am are accuracy and media. i am training there this summer. you have been speaking about issues many college students can relate to. i think many in this audience today are getting ready to vote for what might be their first time in this election. my question for you is which of the candidates do you think is most qualified to meet the needs of college students? especially the ones among us today. >> 501-3c status. i will take a pass. >> same with us. we are non-partisan. >> same with us but i will talk about policy for a second. any promises that are made, i think in terms of -- you will hear and this isn't unique to this year. we hear it year after year from
many folks handing out free community college or limiting student loan debt or forgiving student loan debt. these are issues we hear year after year. i think it is something to keep in mind because we hear it across the board. this idea we can forgive student loan debt is incredible. any time thapt ns we are creating an environment in which we are likely to inflate college cost -- i think about tin in terms of extending our k-12 system to a k-14 system. when college students know two free years of community liege
college had ahead and issues like forgetting student loan debt will make the cost of college higher. for giving student loan debt isn't free. it is on the back of someone and that is the three quarters of american tax payers who don't hold college degrees. it is not equitable. i know that didn't answer your question but throwing extra policy on student lending because it is a big issue and we hear a lot about it. >> when i was a student, i graduated last year, i found when you are in the foreign policy major, you find yourself writing things you know are not going to upset your professor because you know that at the end of the semester he or she are going to grade you.
they are the ones going at a maintain your grade point average and you don't want to hit a subject where you know for a fact you will not see eye-to-eye. what is your take on this? i feel like it has a huge impact on where academics going out there and it is bias for conservatives or anyone who has a different opinion than the person standing at the front of the room. >> sure. it is one of those situations where i think that i have an entire website i worked at that does nothing but cover that kind of thing. i guarantee you we don't catch 5% of it because it is self censorship and as you said you find yourself writing things you disagree with or you know are not true to mullify your professor, get out of the class, get your a and hopefully move
one step closer to your decombrdegree. we have had stories from campus reform where we caught professors on tape and video in their classrooms berating the class. one of my favorite stories came from something i believe like april of 2014 when a professor in a creative writing class started ranting about the upcoming elections saying if republicans win this fall we will live in a different country because they fear people with knowledge and you young people are going to have knowledge so we will see universities being closed down because the republicans will have gained power and this went on for something like five minutes. we ran the story, you know, i believe it ended up on fox news that night. it may have hit the drudge report as well.
within 24 hours, this was at eastern connecticut state university, the head of the republican party in the house in connecticut, stood up during a legislation session and used a point of order that allowed members to respond to personal attacks called out the professor from the floor of the state legislature and got an ovation from fellow legislatures including democrats and a few hours after that the university said well, you know, he can run his class how he wants but we disinvow this words and the professor came out with an apology saying i let my politics get the better of me. we have had multiple stories like that. eastern carolina, a professor didn't allow students from thanking god in their department ceremony because he didn't want it to become a revival. and eastern carolina said they can thank thor, oden or any other diety they want to.
as for a solution on writing things your professor wouldn't like, you can chose to bite the bullet and do that. and you may end up with a story especially if the professor retaliates but in order to correct that will make more than a single story will be able to do. i think it is systemic with the education system. >> i think if you get a bad great that is not merit and it is an ideology that gave you the bad grade and i think being willing to go back to the professor and asking to be walked through it and figure out if there is something there that merited the lower grade or you have a push back. >> you never know, i had
professors i disagreed and they were intellectually honest enough they didn't grade me down for disagreeing with them. you may be surprised. >> hi, i am a recent graduate of cedar ville university. a small, conservative, private school. i want to know your thoughts on how private school should handle free speech. is the schools right to enforce first amendment or should schools be able to keep their first u meamendment rights? >> private colleges are not bound by the first amendment but they cannot do a bait and switch. most private colleges have these beautiful websites with pictures
of, you know, leafy trees and happy students sitting under them reading books, and talk about how coming to our college, exploring new ideas, you know, vistas will open up to you in terms of fields of study, and if they have that kind of language, if they make the promise of free speech and free expression they have to stick to it. there are some states under state law, it is considered a contractual obligation because they offer you free speech and by enrolling you accept that offer. not all states adhere to that. but there certainly is a moral obligation for a school, particularly a school that is taking a lot of your money, to honor its promises.
now because of freedom of association, because it a private institution, it has the right to set its own rules. so if you go to liberty university, and they tell you you cannot have a pro-choice rally, then you are out of luck because they make it clear they have other values. the moral of the story is read that website very carefully, know what is in it, and then hold the school and administrators accountable for what they promised. >> great. i think we have time for one more question. >> hi, my name is rebecca malone and i go to american university. one big theme that is kind of resonating on our campus this
past year is that students feel entitled to trigger warnings and safe spaces and that micro aggressions perpetuate white supremacy. what would you say to these people who self-identify as social justice warriors? and how would you suggest that we counter this rhetoric and promote more freedom of speech on our campus? >> i would say the best way to kind of counter or, you know, create an alternative narrative is to counter that directly. earlier i suggested starting an alternative conservative publication. i think it sounds like au is in need of one of those. you have to call it for what it is. it is students weaponizing their
emotions and saking what used to be social faux pas and creating them for people misspeaking. what it is is students who are not capable of handling reality and want to create an alternative reality which they can do if they try hard enough. they can create a space where nothing bad or mean is said. these people are using their own motion to try to silence others freedom of speech. the only way you can do that is by calling it out. these students read fahrenheit 451 in high school and took it as an instruction manual. you can say this is non-sense and not how the real world works. >> yeah, i mean
micro-aggressions are a little trickier. i think in some ways they are a real thing. i know my father was stateless. he was born in war saw and was ukraineian and came to the country after the war. this was the first country that offer him citizenship. this was the first place that said we will take you and you belong. for the rest of his life people came up to him and asked him where are you from. they were trying to be friendly. he spoke with an accent and was obviously not born in buffalo, new york. and what he heard was you don't belong. and to his dying day, people would ask him that question.
in this final illness the hospice nurse came and asked him that question and i will never forget the look in his eyes of devastation because he was never going to belong. so when somebody starts talking about micro aggression ask them what they mean. ask them why they think where were you from is a micro aggression? why is american is a melting pot a micro aggression. if you probe more deeply into what they are trying to say you may have a very meaningful discussion because this is a problem of what they say and what you hear. it is worth a try.
that would be my advice. but at the end of the day, obviously, you have a right -- i mean a university is there for the exchange of ideas and that person's ideas are no more valid than yours. >> see, i think that is about all we have time for today. but thank you all so much for your questions and thank you for all of our panelist for having this discussion. [applause]
[inaudible conversation] >> our next speaker is katie pavlich. she joined the fox team and serves as a rotating panelist on out numbers and is a network contributor providing political analyst and commentary across fox prime time and daytime programming. in addition to her roll at fox news, she is the news editor for townhall.com and townhall magazine. and the award winning author of the new york times best seller, fast and furious; barack obama famo famous scandal and the cover up.
its organizations that grow into what she has given all of you today. on that now without all of the young activists on campus that only taking the steps to start a chapter by be brave enough to stand up to the status quo on campus to show people and their peers that it matters and new offers a safe seat place on campus against the pro-choice or the culture that is what new is all about to talk about differences of opinions that we may have on the conservative side or the differences between libertarians and conservatives into that
conversation i was here seven years ago actually one of the first news conference we were downstairs in a tight little room with just a conference table and look at what we have today. but the retreat as i hear that is happening in july and has doubled the attendance of last year we are growing and we appreciate all those of her doing what they can to be more inclusive and diverse to offer different avenues so i came to washington d.c. in 2010 of talk about how for knbc is like a dead dog year because it feels like
seven. [laughter] i had some experience as a working professional not a lot when i visit those college campuses about the way things work out right get my first job for internship? what do i do with my spare time? that is my answer some of the questions that is one of the most important powerful city steadily in the country but in the world. >> thinks for being here today as a successful woman in journalism and in the public eye how you gave us confidence and confidence to
speak on controversial issues? that is from another she definitely did not wait raise me in that way not to speak by a lot to her to setting an example for me but also i think to really a understand to be confident in my own ideas and beliefs give me the courage to speak out started by activism on my college campus and to local radio show every single week and for hours to talk about what was going on campus and for those who are not students who were willing to give me a chance but in terms of a young professional woman you have to do your job and be confident and prepared and in terms of being an expert
eye amid media sometimes they think they're experts when they're not in to do the research it is a good buy natalie to be confident which you are presenting but the lineup of your philosophical beliefs and what you need to make a stronger argument. >> i know a lot of us are intern's so how are you taking it more seriously as a young professional woman? >> i see as a young professional and don't thank you should portray yourself
as young special woman who happens to be working in that environment and in terms of getting yourself taken seriously i always recommend when i hire in turn diabolically for job experience and what they can bring to the table to be an asset rather than someone i need to teach more provide no internships are about warning so it is a dollar about experience the gkn braying a certain skill set you are more likely to be hired only stere work on time how to do things especially administrative things like don't forget to stamp your time card to make
sure the details your supervisor doesn't have to remind you learn to take more responsibility so if you can prove to them they contrasted with a certain project that his view be taken more seriously. asking for more work and what i think is helpful if you think it will end at the end of the summer but then you go back to school for one year i would ask for the internship that it was remote i did add a interject for a channel i continued in
arizona where i went to school so it was throughout the year so that way at was on the radar and at the end of the right graduated they've made in space for me so i could come back full time. so be willing to work it to possibilities is a good way. >> i am from george mason university as something that we have talked about is why we don't speak out along conservatives feel they are fearful they don't know
everything on the topic so have you personally get to the conclusion the you can publicly speak about it? what tactics to use when they turn away from fax and start attacking you? have a you bring them back to the fax? >> a think it is the issue about being afraid to speak out rather than not having the information that you need you have an argument to make with the facts on your side maybe if you need a little bit of a push to make the argument if you don't have all the answers and nobody does i don't know everything about that topic i am happy to do more research but then to go back to what you do know a cost to with the motion being used i am not sure if you
can never bring that to the facts this week in the of how to arrange that a motion has become in so far from the pack fax to push the agenda for the people that call you names are get emotional to understand your argument as some point you need to make your case and walk away those of the people you tried to influence may be a have disagreements but she is willing to do check out and is willing to learn more of course, you have to battle the far left some r a lost cause someone to explore a
philosophy in terms of how women on the campus field and talk about that is what you are discussing and then maybe also change their mind >> i am from american university one of the questions i have if you we're doing an interview on tv in their clearly trying to push you a certain way what tips do you have to stay on message and not let that rhetoric distract us that may be blown up in the media? >> a very good example i was invited to the university of
delaware to give a speech on the second amendment the same week now was going up there and made it apparent, that kelly file and make criticized them as advocating for the killing of police officers because they were wearing t-shirts that of course, refers to a convicted cop killer who kicked killed a trooper in the '70s escaped prison in the '80s went to cuba and is still living there today. i also pointed out in the peace they were chanting beings like p.i.g.s. in of blanket fly like bacon that is a reference to police and body bags so as a black lives advocate of course, social media found out about it but i would be
speaking a diversity of delaware so long story short there was a protest outside and then after the event i did not mention the controversy that i had caused rather them for their advocating i did some interviews backstage every single question i received was about the second amendment or the group that had brought me there for what students had done to get the on campus but all questions were about being protested by the black lives matter group and how i felt about saying things that affected them i didn't even answer the question but i
said i am here for the students for this segment amendment and this is what i talked about so i think taking the question and centering back to the topic that it tries to do the opposite so back to where the focus is. >> the question that i have update to your comments on the federal appeals court judge and i would love to
hear your comments on that. >> zero but to take the wailes concealed carry permits in the supreme court has ruled in the opposite the second amendment is individual rights that allow she not only to bear arms inside your home even in washington d.c. the most bureaucratic or dogmatic and controlled they had to reassess their rules the shares you can ban both and is unconstitutional the appeals court doesn't want
concealed carry i am not an attorney about the right to keep and bear arms in doubt it will go to the supreme court. >> how did you start your passion in college? >> you're supposed to go to college in america i didn't know what i wanted to do for my first two years at one point i could but so it just wasn't sure what i wanted to
duke -- wanted to do bba fifth life crisis so to speak and then i rediscovered i debated my teachers and high-school analysis shares sold by rural letter to bill clinton about how unfair his tax policy was when he is taking our money when we could not spend his money so very articulate argument coming from the sexual but i had an ally pulled moment and it clicked a went into journalism and then i realized it was more of the ahmadi in politics is where it should be because i was passionate about that but
that was looking in the right place. >> so as a media professional you work your way up to this level right now what other advice would you give to other professionals who or what has kept you the most crowded? >>. >> speaking to young women like yourselves i always tell them if you what a job in politics move to washington d.c. right after college it is scary a the big decision bayou take back our risk that will ultimately pay off you
definitely have to start somewhere there's a lot of their opportunity you're working on capitol hill or any number of outlets you have so much opportunity to take advantage of everything that is going on some my first book that came about because i saw in issue and lot gone to that as we were covering all the hearings so i think coming here when you were young to understand when you get of college to say yes, and pay your dues and once you do that you have choices about what you really want to do.
i always joke about to humble yourself and just this week we have a new office so all of the windows to the offices are blast and i was speaking to my boss and iran right into the class because it thought it was the doors all the intern's laughed the think being able to laugh yourself keep sugar ended. and appreciating the small things of life who do i know and whose business card did
i get yesterday? and to remind yourself you have it pretty good and appreciate that. is the little things in life. >> i am also from arizona and i am here as an intern with the day the caller. what did vice can you give to young individuals i was just driving through washington d.c. a few weeks ago as to what really goes on i thought maybe it would have men a smoother transition. >> what to do one to warning? >> how cut throated is in the newsroom particularly.
>> the first piece of advice it is a cutthroat life that is why not everybody survives. but the first piece of advice is don't take anything personally you're not there for personal reasons if you can learn from those rejections the short temperaments and learn how to do your work and understand you'll be told no more than you will be told last and for your interest up in there is a caring almost every week except when congress is not in session and even if it is really boring it is an opportunity as an intern to
go your they're getting the experience that is what you should be doing a remember in college i had a laptop i would write stefan and never got published in never got put on the block not even the student newspaper but it was for me to get better at what i was doing even if it doesn't make it to the front page it doesn't mean it was a waste of time. and just to get better. >> my question for you every year is so different but for you what has been the thank
you learn the most this year or this past year? >>. >> it has been a very interesting year to say the least. so i would say some of the people that i looked up to i don't anymore based on what has happened in that is sad to say but true. but i have also learned this is a huge moment in history and it is interesting to watch to see the political process and i have learned when you take a stand you should be proud that you did and i have taken some pretty
a good accident and i was fortunate debris interested and to understand the issue but a matter of being here and working hard but for the second to i talk about this in the book it came about because i was that the invention covering speech after speech how democrats and liberals are the best place to the end during that convention and to pay a seven and a long tribute to kennedy and put it civil-rights champion on the screen.
has attributed to his life the most controversial part to drown and die in his vehicle. so that was hard for me to take to put a war on women and hating women that sure wasn't a nice record or what you could read about. i didn't feel there was a push back on the republicans when they were getting away am lying about where they really stand.
>> hi. i am cady. >> i know who you are. you have a great instagram account. >> thank you. what about those a don't have as much access even if he were not living in washington d.c. bonior college campuses there are a number of stories happening that you can cover with the women's groups and what type of stand there taking so
what are the policy can but? what speakers are coming to a campus and from is an example of my days in college and then to prevent them from getting to class. with the flights of illegal immigrants. another example is the riddled we get extra credit if we heard a speaker that was a representative for care that has ties to hamas and other terrorist organizations. there's stuff like that you can report on the doesn't take deep resources so i would start a local and then fill out your resume a that way.
>> i am from the network women of the night network but what inspired you with your professional life? >> i would say rules for radicals is a good one because it gives you an understanding what you are dealing with that i recommend many people read that book i think fahrenheit 9/11 was a good one. this is like a sarah palin question. let me think. of course, many books i have been influenced by other half to give you all what i haven't read a book in a long time on the sleeve of all those that i have on my bookshelf of course, one signed by a william buckley
for me to get involved to a understand it is just something that is happening today before very long time. there is the book but a handout not really a book from my second book put out by weather underground that had interesting information as the inspiration to fight back against those policies against bill ayers for decades and those that made their way into the policy decisions and programs that we have in our schools with the federal government. i will stick with that for now. >> a i regular part of the neck and shipping group to
national review's wanted to hear some of your thoughts more recently where you think it is going in the future? >> they think there has been some miscommunication and misunderstanding with me against the truck issue as it was never a trump movement actually there is a lot of writers that were part and i don't like donald trump i'm completely willing to vote for him but dennis prager and there are a number of people on both lists and said there be voting for him to never announce to my will be voting for i don't think at this point the movement at this point has much leverage to find it very interesting over the past two or three weeks we see a lot of push
back on the rhetoric used from panicking among conservatives and republicans how they will move forward with trump as the nominee with paul ryan saying he will back donald trump but he wants everybody else to vote their conscience which isn't a raving endorsement but i think it is too late to change the situation out and that doesn't mean people should jump on the trump train but others deserve credit and i understand why people say this is the choice we have. so i don't think he is going anywhere a set of panicking now should have been six months ago. >> we're so grateful to have used speaking today into a
room full of young conservative women and could you talk about that? >> are you talking about the now conference? >> i am. [laughter] a couple years ago when i was doing research for my second book the should read if you haven't i wanted to go to the national organization for women's conference in chicago for a couple of reasons because doing research and wanted to get some firsthand experience that i was writing the book about plus would be in chicago which is ground zero for activism in the united states dating back through the '60s with bill heirs and his wife better now teaching at the university of chicago and i
was at northwestern so was ground zero for progressive activism so i applied for press credentials and three days before the conference and get any mail to say thank-you for submitting your credentials but it has been denied. i wrote back and said playing the female card card, with up press pass and a member of the press i am curious as to why you would deny my credentials and no response very have hotels which show up anyway and i did so when show up so now i will go undercover before i was open so i showed up and they think i stood out a of a little bit. [laughter] everyone was very nice but not a lot of energy in the room they certainly were
doing the things they're doing on campus and it seemed to me they were holding on to this third wave of feminism they had started promoting the idea is that no longer are relevant to this so-called women's movement today most women are pro-life with bleacher abortion we're seeing women trend more into that direction and actually they believe that we should have some restrictions on abortion but this conference and these women they were handing out abortion on demand stickers and really promoting that type of life style and philosophy editing was left behind a long time ago but the most interesting thing was i expected the
abortion stuff in the pro women's stuff obviously even though they have a different perspective than we do but what i found interesting the things that i purchased there and what they were selling. karl marx communist manifesto. rules for socialism and teaching for socialist book that i purchased and a variety of other books by authors that had dedicated their entire lives to karl marx teaching reiterating them so when i read through all of that i found out they had a long term ballgame with the women's movement
and with those ideas of today at novi remember the life of julia but the story of birth to death that was promoted in this material that was published in the '70s and '80s that was the most interesting part of what i found. >> other questions? >> howdy think we as individuals of of narrative of women being victims? >> i think using their own arguments against them is a way to inside that victimhood for women for example, at of many but if you are an advocate for the second amendment for women to defend themselves feminism would argue should be anti-get your responses
isn't it that feminism advocates for women to be individuals to take care of themselves? that is what i am doing wire you forcing me to be reliant upon the government for my own protection and safety? is a debt of about the individual rather economic or personal safety for the choices that i make? i would throw the question back at them anytime they advocate you to be dependent on something the argument is feminism is to be independent you're advocating for dependency especially on the government >> what are your suggestions to motivate students to the political the apathetic election cycle that has been so divisive and vitriol? >> every make the issue personal.
for example, if you'd go bernie sanders people he should point out the fact the government wants to regulate craft be your to the point it will make kraft brewing as an individual is the goal. just plant of little seed research question why they're advocating for something and how it affects them will tell a change their mind go research that issue or then they will start with others another good example is we're seeing the boycott and students that they be apathetic not protesting but not condemning the protest just drop a hint isn't that funny
there protesting an israeli goods but there on the ice on? then they think about that. then they might start to get involved so planting the seeds how it affects them is a way to get at them. >> was there ever a time you question your ideology has that shifted your views? mcfadyen 05 ever questioned it but but use a term of barack obama i have the default on certain issues. i am much more pro-life now that i was a 18. because i learn more about the issue of used to think of abortion as it isn't a big deal and then once i
learned more about it and understood i have a much stronger your viewpoint now. i think the heavy volume on the issue of gay marriage everyone's on that comes from personal experience whether religious or people you know, better day i think have devolved on that but that is politics and philosophy your views change based on your own appearance i have always been a strong advocate for the second amendment so yes i do think i have changed a little bit. never questioned and a liberal or conservative by any means. >> thanks for being here this afternoon. today you have talked a lot
about networking and professional development is there a moment you consider to be defining? >> yes. '02 times maybe there is a lot of defining moments but a few that launched me into getting started initially were i am today. in college my parents were advocates of academic so they sent me to the s.a.t. camp wasted their money and still failed the s.a.t. [laughter] putting college i would graduate my junior and senior year but was unsure far this bin d.c. or new york so it took a trip with my mom to check it out and there was a national association of scholars conference at the same time we ran in town sui decided
to go. this is a conference for professionals not said junior year and college about one professor i do not remember his title but long story short he was on the panel and then we got into a back-and-forth debate what journalism professor advocating city with advocating "the new york times" i said "the washington times" in addition to have of balance of what they're learning that led to a nice young man running me down in the hallway to give me his card let me know if you want to come back so i emails him five times he finally got back to me and put me in touch with someone and i
applied for the internship and got it and that really was crucial getting me to where i am today. second everyone asks how i got on tv for the first time my first appearance was msnbc but first on fox news was redeye and as a young professional i had come from college but not working so i had the ticket to a vip reception it was so hot in the line for drinks was so long that i see them walking the door and said i have to talk to them a push the matter the way and i hear them from a distance say they will leave because the lines for beer work too long so i say don't worry i will give you one what you want? and went to the bar i cut
everybody and i got them beers. [laughter] the next they you know, they invited me to come on the show so i slept in my brother's dorm room on the floor that was a 400 square foot apartment but i made it so that was a defining moment and a good lesson as well. >> any more questions? are you sure? you look like you do okay. keep up the good work. >> how you find that balance between sticking up for yourself and understanding people will never agree with you? >> i am not very good at
that i still speak up when i have a conversation or a debate or presenting a point it is not getting them to agree but to present to those who were interested in the argument to make their own decision i know i will not change their mind that is the point but the goal is to present a better argument based on the facts and what you know, and how people are watching make their own decisions that is what i would say don't try to change their mind but just make your argument. okay. keep up the good work. [applause]
>> joining us from the newsroom thanks for joining with us. >> good to be with you. >> a key point is they're not talking heads or operatives but delegates. >> exactly that is the most important for anyone that will their eyes as they cheer about this to focus that finally we are finding evidence of the people who will be empowered to nominate any candidate and we have heard so much from disaffected republicans to say why can somebody else do this? why can't we do something to slow his momentum or maybe for some concessions but they have been trying to do that over the last two weeks and they finally found each other and they started organizing that mirrors the initial act of is that the leaders of the tea party movement started six years
ago they are mad as hell and will not take it anymore in trying to do something about it. there are people in iowa and colorado washington d.c. -- washington state that are getting together to help to find enough delegates across the country to make something happen. >> house speaker ryan on meet the press said he would never tell anybody to do something contrary to their conscience now he said he will vote for donald trump house significant were his remarks? >> he is the official chairman of the convention so he has to remain above the fray. but essentially he is signaling i will not put my thumb on the scales to say if you want to do something to do it and go ahead and move forward by using the word conscience that will warm the hearts of those who
were trying to do this they are trying to propose what they call a conscience clause to take it to the convention and rules committee a week before to propose instead of being down to the results and a delegate should vote for whomever they would prefer to vote their conscience and some interpretations that is already the way it is supposed to be better reince priebus and other bidders are saying no. delegates are bound to the results of what happened in their state and must vote that way for a certain number of rounds if you've been paying attention you can see how this works between the first one or four rounds they are bound but after that they can do what they want but they're arguing know they can do it from the beginning because it is the delegates to choose the nominee not the voters of the states because they are electing delegates
and not the candidates directly to the convention. >> your piece includes a statement by a truck saying i have tremendous support and get the biggest crowds who specifically? which delegations are behind this effort and how will this unfold? >> no one full-blown delegation is behind this but there are members who are. and no state has decided we will do whatever we can but you have members in colorado which is the state that ted cruz used to organize supporters as early as last summer to go to the state convention there one of the few states live from the convention so that team has banded together to continue
in the hopes of getting tromp to not be the nominee so the home bases in colorado or louisiana rushing to states by a lot. some here in the east coast as well they feel that will grow part of the reason they can now figure out who is due because this past monday the states and territories had to turn in the final list of delegates for the rnc so the die is cast and now it is known but the problem is the rnc was telling people at one point to release the list and did this point i am being told they may not do that so this will require them to find of like-minded delicate to compile the phone numbers in emails that way then reach out to there was one master
list they could determine this by monday morning. but it will take a while and incredibly you have people tell me they're fighting each other on facebook for direct messaging on twitter trying to do this in a quiet and a subtle way or fellow members of their delegations. but if they didn't vote for trump there would have the credentials to put into place that is now 21 ted but he should be able to do what he wants a special if he has concerns of the politics of trump. >> a month away from the start of the convention in cleveland how significant are the last two weeks whether his remarks or comments?
>> all of it because his numbers are taking with a head-to-head matchup of clinton he has said things he is in this for his own personal gain i was struck i am disturbed when he said about the federal judge in california not only raising concerns of his ethnicity but it using his power of the presidency to single out a judge because he didn't like what he had done and not because he ruled against the will of the people but the self-interest of the trump himself so of using his power suggests this week his calls for new gun laws in the wake of orlando was a
red flag very quickly he said to was the second amendment is saddled don't touch it. so they are concerned to expose him so all of this together is inspiring these people to do something to see if there is no way to stopping at the convention they make this very clear they don't even necessarily have a preference who would be other than trump but they feel they can stop in the next month. >> the best organized effort so far to stop trump from becoming the g.o.p. nominee. his work is available on-line. >> with the political primary season over we take
you to the political conventions. >> we're going into the convention in a matter what happens then so strong. >> live coverage from philadelphia. >> in july we will return. >> then we take our fight for racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. [cheers and applause] >> watched the national convention on the c-span networks.
instead think very much welcome to the margaret thatcher senator freedom is my honor to introduce a very good friend i have known him 15 years and first met him when i worked for lady thatcher in my view is one of the most gifted conservative writers of his generation end is responsible for crafting some of margaret thatcher's
most powerful speakers -- beaches and is joining us today to talk about her just days before the british referendum on the eve membership held next week on june 23rd as a special advisor on downing street 86 through 88 and assisted her in the composition of her best-selling memoirs and currently an editor of quadrants magazine and president of the danube institute and also a senior fellow at the national institute and editor-at-large or he served as editor in chief for over a of a decade. teefour the correct
. . >> ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for inviting my today and giving me such a generous introduction. my mother used to say, when she heard things like that, tom just doesn't seem to be able to hold down a job. you've given me a very strong topic and a highly controversial topic, namely, brexit and next week's referendum on it. now, controversy on the question has been briefly stilled in britain by the day of mourning for jo cox, the young woman lane
minnesota -- labor. most of us here in the room would not share miss cox's politics but she was public spirited,ed adventurous intellectually, an opponent not, and wife and daughter, the first member of her family to go college. to high political office. we should mourn her passing, seek justice for the murderer and trust she now lives in god's mercy. we here carry on disagreeing. my topic is thatcher, thatcherrism and brexit. seems to me a few months ago. highly significant that almost the first battle of the referendum campaign was over the question, what would maggie do?
more precisely, how would maggie thatcher vote in next thursday's referendum. it was a quarrel between mrs. thatcher's former aides, friends of mine and of yours now, and but not household names outside that small circle, but it was for a well informed debate. what is more interesting even than the outcome is that controversy is the fact that only a quarter century after she leftovers, margaret thatcher is on one of two postwar british prime ministers whose views on britain's role in europe remain both contested and important to large numbers of british people. that is because whatever other criticisms may be leveled against them, and may be believed. both leaders are recognized universally to have had a visceral patriotism, that made them love their country and fight hard for its interests. no other prime ministers before
or since inspire quite that same belief, and that's why people ask what would maggie do? i'm going to return to that question in a few minutes, but to do so i must first describe the thatcher legacy, or what is also called thatcherrism. if you want to under the basic drive in thatcherrism it is to be found in some words she addressed to a television interviewer towards the close of the 1979 election campaign. with the election campaign almost over she felt able for a moment to let down her guard, and she exclaimed, i can't bear britain in decline. i just can't bear it. that outburst was completely sincere. it was also prophetic. whatever else it was, thatcherrism was a politics designed to halt and reverse the decline of britain. but margaret thatcher was a
practical politician rather than philosopher, and her legacy is the record and result of practical responses to the problems facing britain of today. initially reversing britain's decline was seen by her in economic terms because the most obvious problems were economic ones. her remedies were cautious, flexible, and responsive to this problems as they crossed the government's path, insofar as as they were rooted in ideology they weredrop longly from anglo scottish tradition of economics because surely -- shirley points out in her fine study, the anatomy of thatcherrism, that condition had been 'found in both parties. it was seen as much as a classical liberal. also an intellectually formidable tradition. above all, however, the most
obvious -- economic solutions, a social democratic verse on keynesianism, came to the end of its tether and strikes in what payment known as the winter of discob tent. thatcherrism and economics has strong claim to being a new economic common sense following the implosion of post war consensus economics. but thatcherrism was neverly purely economic set of ideas. when british interests were challenged from other directions, as in the faulklands war and the cold war, mrs. thatcher drew on other traditions, including tough mindedness and liberal internationallallism to justify here positions. moreover, thatcherrite economics and -- sorry -- thatcherrite
impulses were not the final who determine policy. a fierce patriotism drove her, but it was government by a highly practical prudence. her two victories in the faulkland war and the miner's strike shows this is so. she did not expect or plan for an argentinian seizure of the fakelands but -- faulklands but would coo not ignore. she took calculated risks militarily and diplomatically. but only after she had digested the best economic, best diplomatic and military advice. at several points she offered concessions to buenos aires the south dangerous but did so from the calculation that greater dangers lay in -- all in all,
she maneuveres to victory as much as moving boldly towards it. similarly, she surrendered to the miners union demands in 19891 when she was informed that britain had insufficient coal stocks to resist a strike. but she at ones -- once began a billup of coal stocks to resist a strike when its came later three years later, she defeated it. these two outright political victories, one military, ran counter to the usual postwar british politics of compromise and splitting the difference. together with her prominence, in cold war diplomacy and her successful economic policy, they establish her domestic dominance entrenched her economic and labor union reforms as a new consensus in british politics and elevated her in international profile.
in foreign affairs she played a crucial roll in helping other west european governments to resist the powerful peace movement and thus getting u.s. missiles stationed in western europe inch my view that's the moment we won the cold war. she brought together reagan and gorbachev towards ending the cold war peacefully after various summits of the nowed late 1980s. to be sure, thatcher was obviously a subordinate partner in the thatcher-reagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. given the relative size of the two economies and militaries, it could hardly have been otherwise. indeed she should also have been the junior partner the terms of economic influence, too. but she wasn't. it is mrs. thatch we're will by regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic reformer. why should that be so? in the first place, the recovery of the british economy in the
1980s was more impressive because it started from a lower economic point and occurred in a more left-wing country. jimmy carter was quite good at ruining an economy but he didn't match anywhere socialis who had been running britain for most of the post war time. then mrs. thatcher had harder opposition to overcome. she had to -- labour market regulation had to overcome resistance, and finally the reforms had to defeat major nonparliamentary challenges from the labour unions. they provided a demonstration of what free market reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time. those demonstrations were not however identical. tax cuts were america's principle intellectual export in the reagan years.
privatization was britain's. of the two, privatization turned out to be more important globally since both third world and post communist economies were burdened by large inefficient state industries to which privatization was a ready-made solution. when privatization succeeded, which it did with surprising speed the most unlikely converts took note. thatcher, even more than reagan, possessioned an economic alcohol length to the soviet union. either reform or fall further behind the capitalist west. comparison between the british economy after a decade of free market economics, and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of communism, was simply too embarrassing to ignore. once perestroika was introduced, however, it very rapidly destroyed the communist system it was designed to save.
and once the command coached the soviet bloc collapsed in 1989, revealing the extraordinary wasteland produced by state planning, it was the thatcher model that the new democracies south -- sought to emulate. thatcher, reagan and john paul ii were heros in post communist europe. but it was thatcher to whom the new economy ministers, such as poland, czechoslovakia looked at how to reform a bankrupt economy. and the more the communist societies followed the thatcher model the more quickly their economies rows from the dead. not only in the post communist world that margaret thatcher was seep an as inspiration. thatcherrism has an important impact in africa and asia.
privatization, the better control of public debt, lower taxes, the reduction of barriers to trade and capital movements. these became the new conventional wisdom in ministries of finance around the globe. their broad result, globalization, has become -- became the watch word of world bank and imf reports. now, there are naturally points of view much more critical as the thatcher legacy than you have heard from me. they argue her economic policies, some he labour veterans argue some of her economic policies failed. it is undowd -- undoubtedly true that errors were made in the thatcher years. hard to imagine any government that doesn't make some such errors but they were far outweighted be the economic success of thatcherrism, notably a sustained rise in productivity. some successes were evident at the time. she left britain as the world's fourth largest economy, but the
general and sustained economic performance continued through the major and blair administrations right up to 2008 financial crisis. indeed on becoming chancellor, in 1997, after the labour victory, gordon brown was given a treasury briefing which concluded on the economy -- which concluded with the words these are wonderful figures to which he famously replied. what do you want me to do send them the note? even if the criticism of thatcher's purely economic legacy were correct they into not be a conclusive criticism of her overall record. her privatization revolution, safeguarding of constitutional democracy, by her defeat of the miners, her victory in the faulklands, her roll along reagan and coal and the defeat of communism, trade union reforms these, and other changes she brought were plain by both
important and strategical in even if that they contributed nothing to economic improvement, which they did. one, sensely mount modest criticism at the achievements but not possible to persuade open-minded people there are substantial failures of political disaster. the proof another that. even when the labour and democratic parties continue to dislike them they do not propose their repeal or rejection. now, the exceptions to this list of achievements is the european union. most of mrs. thatcher's biographers and critics believe her stance on europe was major historical error that her country would see in retrospect as nostalgia run riot. he would left behind by history and by britain when it eventually embraced the european future. and until the last few months when the brexit referendum
revealed that britain is split down the mid'll its identity and future are truly european, it looked as her to he critics might be right. but it is clear that this question, still an open one, and since her views will and do influence others, the referendum and debate on what would maggie do began. it began when charles powell wrote an opening salvo in the "sunday times" in which he argued she would vote yes if the brexit referendum. charles powell was lady thatcher's closest collaboratessor on on foreign poll? i downing street. his closeness is indicate bid the fact that he and his wife, carla, were the only other guests at the downing street dinner party that prime minister thatcher and sir dennis gave to president and mrs. reagan on his last official visit to britain. there will six people around the table and charles was one of
them. he remained a close and devoted friend of lady thatcher until the day of her death. he was the last friend to see her. think his opinion on this question commands respect. we still, however, have the opinion of robin harris who disputed the judgment in the london spectator him was an adviser to mrs. thatcher, head of the research dedepartment and one of the ghosts who helped with her biography as i did and now helped with statecraft and the men who helped her with her final book. he declared adamantly, i know that margaret thatcher would have fought brexit with all her strength. charles' judgment was seconded in a letter to to the pi the times by a form are cabinet member. robin's judgment was -- would --
lord tibbet and now by you. weighing in from the sidelines was charles moore, her distinguished and most recent biographer, who in the spectator, cautiously said that he doesn't usually speculate on what mrs. thatcher might have done about controversies and issues that took place after her death, but he concludes that in the end, yes, she had firmly, privately embraced brexit by the end of her public life. this is a very distinguished list of -- who is right. i custom marrily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. thatcher would have done about the iraq war or brexit or anything else. in the strictest sense it is impossible to know what someone would have done about an event after his or her death for the simple reason that the deceased didn't know the circumstances in
which the event takes place. and assed mond burk remarked circumstances did in reality every political principle is discriminating color and discriminating distinguishing scholar discriminating effect. the circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme either beneficial or noxious to mankind. in this case, charles powell would presumably argue that at the reforms prime minister david cameron brought back from his european tour and britain's relationship with it were a real improvement in the european union, and thus favorable circumstances that would move a revived lady thatcher to vote remain in the forthcoming reverend rum and robin harris would doubt that they fail to render the european union less noxious to britain and even show contempt for the country that
would confirm lady thatcher in her desire to vote leave. understand the date would become about the wisdom or otherwise of the stantive -- substantive decision of what mrs. thatcher would decide if given ay all the facts. when that happens we all bring our personal biases to making such judgments and risk furthering-under own opinions. that said we need not observe the strictest standards in sump controversies in the interest of reaching a common sense verdict. in this case on what maggie would have done. to do that plausibly, we must test reasons these well informed and intelligence people give for holding such opposing rules. robin harris on his side have the more straightforward task. they simply quote statements mrs. thatcher made in statecraft, he last book in ooccasional public speeches and private conversations criticizing the european union,
and criticizing the federalist ambitions and its direction of travel. some of her public statements go to the very brink of -- withdrawal from the eu and stop there but she went furor in private and told a number of people she wanted to withdraw. charles powell did not deny this but argued that there were effectively two thatchers who veered back and forth between her excitable rhetoric and her rational decisions. he could full minimummate against europe as harshly as the most hardened euro skeptic and then, quote, settle for the best she could get in european negotiations. now, there's undoubted lay great deal of truth in this picture that charles paints. on a few occasions i was in the room when she did exactly that. she was blowing off steam in frustration at the antics of britain's european partners, and having done that and relieved her feelings she settled down to work out generally with charles
powell what she had conceived to get what she wanted. sometimes she later considered the had made a mistake. charles in my view would be less than human if believing the remaining causes in 2000 he did not also believe he would be able to work out a similar deal with her on this occasion to stay in europe on better terms. that said, which version is closer to a dispassionate reality? let me suggest three criteria of judgment. in the first place, to the there were occasion -- though there were occasions when she full pinaulted in private and conceded later in private, her public statements were almost invariably cautious, well-calculated and reflective of her intended policy. yet her last year in office until she left public life her speeches were almost critical on security, domestic policy and
weakening of national sovereignty. here's an excerpt from a speech she gave to the congress of prague in 1996. i quote: the overall european federalist project which was envisioned by some from the start but which is only in recent years come out into the open, is in truth a nightmare. or from her book, statecraft, that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a european super state was ever embarked upon will be seen in future years the greatest folly of the modern era and britain as a strength global destiny should if have been part of it will appear to be a political error of historic magnitude. it's hard to accept that this consistent line of argument over more than a decade was a case of blowing off steam, that she would discard when faced with a
decision on brexit. secondly, although mrs. catcher changed her mind on particularly european issues she did not zigzag on europe. she didn't go back and forth in policy terms. there is a clear trajectory in her career that takes her from being an unenthusiastic endorser of u.k. membership in the 1975 referendum, through growing disenchantment towards it as prime minister to her later severe criticisms of it. she moved erratically but consistently in the euro skeptic direction and there's no indication of any reverse moms later. finally, her charles is right to say the laid the groundwork for making the european union a more habitable institution for the british, obtaining, for example, a financial rate rebate for the u.k.'s excessive payments and it's true that later prime
ministers surrenders gave that achievement back and surrendered more sovereignty to brussels. its hard to imagine her voting for a european legal order which means that sovereignty rests with european institutions like the european court of justice, rather than westminster, and the only way to remedy this is brexit. all of which inclines me to the robin harris side of the argument. seems to me to be obvious that the woman who said, i can't stand britain in decline, i just can't stand it, would be appalled by the leave campaign, they basis by the remain campaign -- the basis its case of the eu on the argument that britain, its largest economy in the world thanks to her, is too small and teenle to exist outside a german -- but i'm already on the brexit side of the argue. so you most aim for bias in my own views. that being sew let me try to go
deeper into thatcherrism rather than simply consider thatcher as a political leader. in her important study of thatcherrism, mrs. leftwin argues that thatcherrism drew more broadly on a distinctive english morality. and philosophically sophisticated board she argues since middle of a time -- drawing on the class ya -- distinguishinged between reason and the passions, thinking that robe should be vested in a government powerful enough to control the unruly passion of citizens and prevent their descent. the english developed a view not opposed to the passion put integritied with them. in this moral vision, the
thatcherrite reasoned that -- enables human beings to interpret and respond to experience as they will. a courageous power that enables each person to choose differently from others, indeed differently from what he himself did yesterday. unquote. so an individual is neither a mechanical effect of larger social causes nor a play thing of his or her own unruly passion. in this picture a human being in possession of his faculties is never merely potter's clay and is himself both potter and clay because he necessarily decided what to make of whatever happens to him. individuals are rational beings, making choices in the light of the opportunities open to them, those choices should be respected. social and political institutions should not be their permanent guardians imposing order on them against they're desire. the arrangement to enable them
to make their choices without bumping into each other, and, therefore, allowing them the maximum freedom in doing so. she believes that thatcherrism is the recovery of this almost lost social english social vision. she doesn't believe mrs. thatcher herself had a arrived at this self-consciously and thought through its various implications. she knows she hadn't. he two women were good friends and intuits that mrs. thatcher in part 0 how she was provincial held fast to this -- on this issue is rather like an amateur singer who unable to read a note of music but able to hold a tune, sings songs from her
youth, put others are forgotten until her singing stir this memories and then they sigh things against as they once saw them. hence the surprising hill swift revival of englands vigorous virtues and other concepts and enterprise. swift recovery of british industry and economy once that has been thatcherrite freedom. now, one need not share this entire analysis in order to see thatcherrism as a recovery of those forgotten songs. they are an untheoretical spirit of english individuality, liberal and conservative, both patriotic and open-mined, that once encompassed assault english people and crossed both parties. now they map a new division between those who still real estate it's in to this older liberal spirit and those converted to the new liberalism of europe.
now, anyway have thought my argument about reason and conflict to have been unduly abstract, and i sympathize with you, but consider this. the founders of the european union explicitly justify their new political order as a means of preventing their peoples from following their passion into conflict. that is why they have deprived them of so much democracy, the kind of democratic institutions we in this country and in england and the anglo sphere tend to take for grantedded, and yet almost inevitably, given the paradoxes of history, it is the european success to those founding fathers who now aggravate national conflict and social distress by their own unruly passions for uniformity in the case of the euro. and other european institutions. well, that was of course
thatcher's last battle. you reach conclusions on the euro and more broadly on britain's -- he took time to do so. she was always a work in progress, also the clever girl reading a new book, feeling her way in new policy areas and as she drew more confident, making judgments that would generally consistent with all her other mitt cal instincts. the more she encountered european union the more suspicious of it she became. it seemed to her to concentrate centralizing and leveling passions in the bureaucratic machine, insensitive both to the sovereignty of nations and the aspirations of citizens. ...
she will seem to be behind history and it will look like a glorious last stand before it is subsumed into a collective european non-identity. in my view, in either event she will have to serve well of the people she governed for 11 years. without her, they would not be having any choice in the matter. thank you.
[applause] >> john, thank you very much for this beautifully crafted remarks , extremely insightful and i would like to offer an opening question with regard to the impact of the anglo-american special relationship. how do you see burton post praxis reshaping the special relationship and could you comment on president obama's innovation a few weeks ago where he warned the british against the european union tell them they would be at the back of the queue if they don't vote for braxis? >> if indeed the british vote for braxis will start a process. overnight there will be no change.
there will be essentially two years of negotiating a new relationship between britain and europe and i think that will be accomplished much more easily than many including president obama have argued. britain is the largest market for the goods and services of the rest of europe and it's not in anyone's interest that there should be a. trade war and both sides will therefore act rationally once the shock is over. even suppose for example the british don't reach an agreement on entry into the single market. that doesn't mean to trade will stop. most of the world is a member of the european single market. america isn't and if america trades more with the e.u. countries then does britain, so
i think there will be a period of rational reconsideration of the best deal for both sides can get and i don't believe it will be a terrible outcome. i think it will be a better outcome for both because one of the disadvantages the europeans have had with the british in europe is that they were always objecting to what most of the other european countries wanted to do it i think those objections were completely reasonable from a british standpoint. we are much more free trading for the rest of europe. we are much more critical of regulations much more skeptical and wanted much more freer economy than western europe and the best we can deal with those questions is through the device of what is called jurisdictional competition, different countries have different mixtures of tax and regulation we see which works best when those countries compete. i think we will be moving to that if we leave the e.u. through brexit so i think that is promised to be a massive change.
in the long run i think the british will tend to look first to the countries of the former commonwealth known known as the anglo sphere. one of those countries of the american puts some of the earlier arrangements will be with canada, australia and new zealand. in fact some of you may know the work of james c. bennett sometimes known as the father the anglo sphere and he has developed a very practical detailed plan about which are available on line and i recommend it to all of you. i believe without having james tactical knowledge here and not having done similar work is done i believe there will be a relatively easy development of closer relations which were severed by the british decision to enter europe in the 60s and 70s. so i think it will be with those countries first that britain finds itself moving towards. the special relationship will
play its part in that but it won't be the only relationship and there will be a slight nervousness at the beginning and whoever's prime minister and the ministers in the cabinet and seeming to in a sense rush to be america's best friend, because at the moment the special relationship in england is suffering something of a decline. i think they would need to work on that but it won't be the very first thing that the british will do in the circumstances. they will be looking at other members of the anglo sphere family and they do that they will feel they are a strong position to approach united states with suggestions. >> thank you john and i'd like to invite questions from the audience. please do identify yourself in an institutional affiliation you may have when you asked the question. >> a national strategic studies association.
leaving the e.u. is not the same as leaving europe. can i ask what you feel the outcome would be and what you make of the view that --. >> two things, one is the tragic death has since brought all of the discussion over next week for a hall. maybe producing some sentimental votes and maybe i don't have the latest news that the merger seems to have some sort of connection. i'm not sure thing is for some some fanatical groups. if that's the case it will be a slight disadvantage for the
brexit site. but these things happen so i can predict the outcome. i would have said last week that brexit seems likely to win because the momentum is clearly towards it and the campaign there remains wages been a failure. and they have lost the battle mat sense. what will happen as a result than what happened as a result whether it's yes or no weather remains or goes, the european debate has been completely transformed in british politics. we now know that people who want to leave the european union are half the population. they may be 40% or 52%. they may fall to 40 but they won't fall below it. they may raise to 55 or 60 but they won't go above that but they are there. you can't have half the population believing something
powerfully and with the rest of the political structure with the major parties and the bbc, the media acting as if there are a small handful of -- they are paying debate has been completely transformed in britain and that's a permanent change. it will have to be her foot in the conservative party. it's being conducted almost entirely within the conservative party. the other parties just haven't counted. first of all having counted because they thought they were uniformly committed to remaining within but that's not quite true. the labor vote contains a lot of people who want to leave and they are discovering this is some of those people move to brexit. it is now a permanent part of
the british structure and britain decides her mean it's going to be a watchdog to make sure any of the government will continue to keep the promises it made to the british people in this campaign. so the european as i say, british politics has been altered permanently by this referendum campaign whatever the results and it's going to be altered in a way that i think is better because the previous result was to try to deny the plain facts that millions of british people were skeptics and to treat them as people who are whirly worth listening to. >> tony abbott, i know tony as you probably do and i think very highly of him. i think he's wrong on this but it's not surprising. the entire international establishment which tony is not a member of but nonetheless he did and i think, he would have had to spend a lot more time
thinking about it and looking into it before he felt he could come out with anything on the other side. i think he did, i think his main motives and he can speak for himself but his main concern was the unity and stability of europe at a time was being threatened by putin. i understand that. i don't think it leads to the conclusion that he reached but it's a very serious matter and of course we have to respect that kind of reasoning. >> two questions. i will take them together. >> competitive enterprise institute. john come you didn't discuss the future of the mighty kingdom if we have wrecks it. can you comment on scotland and how that might fit in? >> at roth "u.s. news and world report." i'm curious your thoughts on whether or not europe is willing
to let britain go regardless of the referendum. here in the united states as you know we have operated with the sovereign political entity's joining together in free association from which they could withdraw an idea that was put to bed in 1865 so i'm wondering if europe will lead britain up? >> thank you. first of all my ring, nice to see you again. what was your question, i forgot. scotland. the answer is we have to pile hypotheticals on hypotheticals. we don't know the result of the brexit. suppose brexit passes. we don't know whether that would pass in scotland. everybody will vote against it and they may. or if i who is going to bring, who is going to passes bill to have a second referendum? it would have to be eventually by the british government on the grounds that you had a
referendum in scotland two years ago and we don't reference them. with that famous punch cartoon? do you have a copy of the french restitution. i'm sorry sir we don't stock periodical's. finally we don't know that it would get through the scottish product because the scottish national party no longer has a majority there. so it's a possibility that it may happen. my view to the scottish referendum was a didn't want the scots to leave the union and if they decided to go they had a right to go. i think they would not and this is my final point i think the scots if they wanted to go would look at the changed circumstances that they would be facing as a country leaving the u.k.. with the price of oil in the basement and the high price of
oil is the basis of the economic scottish independence and with the spaniards determined not to have an incentive to a president for babylonia leaving and letting the scots in. i don't think it's one of those stairs stories which doesn't matter and isn't true it's not something which keeps us awake at night and finally because after all the scots want to go. we will attempt and they may come back. i didn't recognize you with the beard, sorry. how are you? >> will europe let them go? >> there's no doubt about it and it's impossible to imagine a circumstance in 200 years in which the european super state would allow one of its members to disappear but i think we are talking about it in a completely different world.
don't know what it would be like for the moment. a great desire in europe to key people in but the way it's done is not with guns but with large checks which the northern europeans right in the southern europeans cash, so i think that will be true until germany and the spaniards run out of money and that i think it will be interesting but i don't think there will be a battle. >> i have a question here. martin for the center for individual rights. i have a question about the effect of wrecks it on the relationship between the european union and russia. so i'm thinking both that western europe tends to be more accommodationist with russia than britain is and also the populist parties, the pro-brexit
parties of the european union tend to be combination -- combination this a russia. so once all of this have a tendency to accommodate by germany? won't all those get greater impetus either for the breakup of or for more accommodation above? >> let me answer that in two ways. outside about nato on the one hand and secondly the countries of central europe which i think you are worried will become accommodationist. my own view is the european defense policy the attempt to create a separate and independent european i mean a european army for example it's either diverts resources from nato or duplicates what nato already does. it's a thoroughly bad thing.
the americans should not have gone along with it. they should have insisted that the european defense treaty that protects the whole of europe and has done so now since 1949 as nato and we don't want to what is it, except no substitutes because those substitutes are a distraction and diversion of resources at a time when europeans are not spending enough money on defense of any kind. that solution we should be saying to them. instead of creating these fancy uniforms, what we need is the europeans to spend more on defense and i think that may happen as a result of the rising anxiety of putin in russia. so i think britain's leaving the european defense structure would be a plus. it would be a good thing and we shouldn't fear to the second quickly i think the stuff about
the accommodationist in central europe is overdone. it's a reaction to the fact that in 2009 president obama essentially told the central europeans that he wasn't interested in them. he withdrew the deal over the missile defense treaty. he told the pulse on the anniversary of the invasion of poland in 1939 and so they have quite reasonably begun to fear if we have got an aggressive rush on our border or next door to our border we have to find a way of not irritating them. i think that is more than anything else is the response. you will notice that the central european countries that continue to play their part in upholding nato and e.u. sanctions on putin's russia. they don't like it gives it harms their economies which are often weak but they have kept,
signed on to and maintained the sanctions on russia. i think this is overstated, this fear. >> it seems that today immigration and sovereignty in the u.k. and europe as a whole and english morality and greatness associated primarily with economic. today the children are the main people to be you and immigration. >> i think the immigration policy should be always at all
country -- country should be determined by the assemblage of capacity of the country both economic terms and in cultural terms. what they want is immigration to run at a level and that means those people don't feel that new arrivals don't feel they are joining a small imitation enclave of their own country but joining america or joining britain or joining australia. in general that has been true and successful. for how long, since well i think it was successful until sometime in the 80s and since then the numbers of immigrants coming in and all countries and sometimes their character, the sense that they want to maintain a separate kind of institution, separate kind of nationality within
america or within britain has led really serious problems, problems of national cohesion and social order and terrorism. so we talked about all of those things in a practical way. mrs. thatcher did control immigration. she didn't stop it. it continues at a moderate level but didn't rise to the level of which it created and brought tensions to society. groups assimilated fairly well. not all groups as we know. muslims are harder to assimilate. they have a much more impervious separatist culture and they assimilate and jobs become a productive member of society but they often maintain a different consciousness and society in the problem in britain is that the british encourage this in an interesting way. we no longer teach our own
children to be proud of being british. it's something which is disappeared. you still do and mrs. thatcher certainly wants them to do and at one point in the war churchill was asked by one of his ministers what are we going to teach the children in the new schools we are planning and churchill said tell them how was took the back. in a way that's right. he is onto something that we need to work out the implications of churchill's remarks and we need to for planner and schools. its interesting countries like india for example do have stress in their schools a commitment to the country. the same kind of attitudes as americans do, they pledge allegiance to the flag and that kind of thing. it's hard to imagine that happening in britain today that if britain is to survive its going to have to become thinkable again.
>> george from orlando and i'm curious about what was pointed on breitbart news immigration is really a successful argument that the league campaign used against the state campaign in the second part of my question is i remember reading in a canadian newspaper during thatcher's governors of united kingdom in one of the newspapers about his proposal of a monetary union within the anglo sphere and thank you for using that term between u.s. canada, between canada, u.k. hostility and new zealand. spin it i'm sorry, so your question, sorry what is the question?
[inaudible] >> i think the monetary union i'm not an economist. i am looking at the euro and it makes me think there should be very serious test. we would have course be going back to the sterling area. i would like to leave that to the monetary experts. i can see where something is failing like the euro and i don't necessarily want to lay the groundwork for something that might fail as well. as regards immigration debate yes. in a way the battle and if you are thinking over brexit it's been a battle between the remaining people who say we have to remain in europe to be prosperous. i personally think that's false and so do a lot of economists. apparently not the majority but frankly when experts differ it's the rest of us to make the best choice we can. there is no single expert view on that that's what they're
saying. the other side says look and pass your remain in the free trade area but we'd don't want to find yourself living in a country in which we don't govern ourselves. britain has been a self-governing democracy and we don't see any reason why we should give that up, the sovereignty argument. the problem with the sovereignty argument has been that it's somewhat by the abstract argument unless you have an example of how the loss of sovereignty is damaging to you. in this case the fact that under the rules of the european union you are not able to control the entry of european citizens and your country at all. they have free movement of labor and free movement of persons so you have lost control of immigration and immigration being very high, both from the e.u. and other parts of the
world and the majority of the citizens are very worried about it. during the campaign new figures came out suggesting that the government simply didn't know how many people were coming into the country and how many people were actually claiming tax relief and so on and so forth. so immigration has been a very important part of the brexit debate because it's a very strong illustration of the loss of sovereignty and what it can mean in practical terms and if brexit is passed that will be one of the major reasons it has passed. >> high i'm a -- hi i'm a former employee upi. my question is i know you were for brexit. if you are running the campaign what would you see as the best arguments? >> that's an interesting
question. that campaign hasn't succeeded. that isn't to say they may win narrowly but the campaign as a whole has been a failure. one of the reasons being that some of the claims of low will happen become so ludicrously exaggerated the people just dismiss them. you may not have seen the television, david cameron's first exposure to this when he gave an interview to our forget which television company that the interviewer said to him, mentioning -- tommy prime minister what's going to come first after brexit, world war ii or the great depression and that copied whole audience exploding in laughter. obviously it was exaggerated claims and were something not
being believed. i thought at that point i will have to scale back on that. i will have to be doing something of a cooler and calmer but they haven't. this week the chancellor of the exchequer george osborne has threatened an emergency budget if brexit passed that would raise taxes by 30 billion pounds. now that has produced two very strong reviews. 57% say with never vote for such an budget which was the exact opposite of what you would do in the event of the problems who is predicting osborne was predicting and two former chancellors of the exchequer into party leaders wrote a letter to the telegraph saying that osborne was simply indulging in -- and that no, and this is the key sentence you don't often get party leaders in chancellors saying this, no responsible chancellor could
refuse such a argument. so that policy failed. i suppose i would stress as they have done the uncertainties and risks of life outside. that's what they have done. the problem is that the other side stressed the uncertainties of risks remaining within the european union particularly if the european union is speaking of things like establishing new sorts of european institutions like the european army or a european fiscal and union that will in effect take away the fiscal sovereignty from the eurozone states. i think my answer is coming up. i don't think there's a good case actually and it would be very hard for me to think of one.
>> thank you. one of the arguments you hear around washington is that if britain leads the e.u. it will weaken the special relationship. how would leaving the e.u. perhaps strengthen the special relationship? >> item that you would weaken the special relationship at all and one of the problems is if you are a journalist and you are writing about these things you are obviously go to people in previous demonstrations or the existing one and they are all part of the kind of a setup for sponsor bold public officials and they take a cue from each other just as the economic institutions meet each other and davos. they sit on the same panel exchange the same ideas. they fall victim to a kind of conformity. what's it called, groupthink which is conformity by scapegoating. if you actually look at the institutions which have recently been issuing these condemnations
with the idea of wrecks that you will generally find, what would you will find this people slightly down from down from a top-level comment to levels than giving a speech and someone saying actually i don't agree with what the imf is saying or i don't think the bank is correct on this. again and again they are people coming saying this is nonsense. it's not that they are saying there may be a negative impact and there may be positive impact to counter it but leaving a system which is fundamentally 3% barrier and intrusive regulatory system called harmonization is not going to have a terrible effect on the british economy or on british society. so quite a lot of these arguments just have to be met with a robust realistic common sense and a request that these
people think again. i'm sorry i don't believe i've answered your question, have i? i don't think it would weaken the special relations. and incidentally met let me put it this way. i'm a huge fan of america and i'm married to a anne meara ken and i have two american stepdaughters. i pay american taxes and so i am very much on america's side and i would be open to either trying to forge agreements with american policies on a number of things but if you say to me you know it's terribly useful having you chaps at the conference tables in brussels were all these things are hammered out. you can represent our interests and i would say well that's fine
but i don't forget quite justifies my surging my political independence and democracy in order to help you out from time to time. yet that is the nature of the argument that barack obama made to the british people. we love you, stay in there and fight for us. give in. >> very well said and just a final question for you with regard to the future of david cameron. if you were that were to leave the european union next week what is the face of the prime minister? stu or two people involved here because david cameron -- our partnership and i would say at this point george osborne is a dead man walking. he will probably not be able to remain chancellor of the exchequer.
they have both waged a campaign that's highly aggressive and which is, which people just think it's unreasonable and i think he has lost his authority. i don't think he will stay. the prime minister state will depend on three things. will depend if there is, if there is brexit i don't think most members of the conservative party in or out of the parliament will think the man who played such a passionate campaign against brexit is the man to negotiate with europe for the conditions. i just think that they will conclude that it should be somebody else. in the event that there is a narrow victory for prime minister will probably perhaps be able to cling on to the
office he will do so as the prisoner of -- because he will have to surround himself with ministers who were on the opposite side of the campaign in recent weeks. the conservative party will conclude that mr. cameron's judgment and calling a referendum that he didn't really have a good idea of what the impact of who is going to be and then almost losing it means that he is on the very shortly should and i doubt that he would survive for long. i do think the big question here is, and the only way he can in a sense retain independence out of power is if there is a massive majority and that doesn't look like it may happen. the long-term question is this. they're right in british politics is being divided by
this issue for some time and divided between two different parties the tories and the brexit in the last 10 years. if brexit occurs and even if romain wins by a small majority think a lot of people will be saying to themselves the right could remain in office for a long time if it reunites in the same way the canadian right reunites it and brought about the conservative party which then held power for think nine years. there would be a lot of people who would be wondering how to get the u.k. back and maybe to get it back within the conservative fold. that could be a hard thing to do brothers who fallout are often worse enemies than strangers can never be but i do think there will be a lot of people wondering look, the get-together we will have more than 50% of
the national vote and we wood should get that because some u.k. brothers ahmad on the right. they would get enough to be improper for a long time and that's a tempting opportunity. >> i want to thank john o'sullivan for a tremendous presentation today. [applause] john my hope you will be back at heritage in the coming months. so delighted to have you with us today and thank everybody for joining us today and we look forward to the brexit referendum next week on thursday. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
syria and the perception that somehow the arab spring, the peaceful collective action could not really change the existing order. >> i often say that 50 is not the new 30 and 60 is not the new 40. 50 is the new 50 and it looks good and it's okay and people are to own their age. we ought not be talking about being over 50. >> the fastest growing age segment in this country are people over the age of 85 and the second is people over the age of 100.
when these programs were put in place life expectancy was 67 or 68 and so not only are there more people in the system but they are living longer so we have to be able to look at these programs and make meaningful adjustments that is going to allow people to live dignity at a much longer period of time. in may the justice department issued a memorandum on the rise of transgender students in schools. it recommended that students be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their express gender reports of education and central states are challenging this ruling. the u.s. commission on civil rights voted 6-2 to support the federal government's recommendations. members of the commission discussed their ruling in this half-hour briefing.
>> next we move on to a discussion and vote on that letter or a statement by the commission in support of the department of education's office of civil rights and u.s. department of justice on transgender students and protections under title ix. i would like to make a motion that we approved the letter and asked for a second and then i will read it so that we can discuss it. i make a motion that we approve. is there a second? >> i second. >> would the. this to the record and then we can discuss it. everyone is our great state a copy of this in advance so i'm not going to read the footnotes that you have them in front of you. the proposed statement would. the united states commission on civil rights strongly supports the joint guidance set forth by the department of education's office of civil rights at the department of justice on the protections for transgender students under title ix of the education amendments act of 1972
to title ix of the education amendments of 1972 which we will refer to hear -- or to title ix states quote no person on the basis of sex they slated from participation in the denied benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or two but he receiving financial assistance through the department of education's office for civil rights and department of justice issued guidance stating that for the purposes of title ix and its implementing regulation quote the departments treated students gender identity as the students sack's end quote. to ensure nondiscrimination the basis of sex transgender students must be allowed to participate in activities use facilities and access housing consistent with their gender identities. under title ix and the family educational rights and privacy act the school is updated to protect transgender students
privacy related to their transgender status to schools or work hard to provide a safe and non-discriminatory environment and when harassment based on gender identity is discovered quote must take from too effective to steps to prevent there is membranous reoccurrence and as appropriate remedy is it that end quote. the guidance was bored by the department of education at the department of justice reasonably interpret sex discrimination to necessarily include gender identity discrimination for purposes of compliance with title ix. it's a logical outgrowth for voluntary resolutions into which both the departments come into which both departments have entered into with prior litigation page also serves as the correct foundation for the recent decision handed down by the fourth circuit that the departments interpretation of its own regulations regarding restroom access by transgender individuals. on april 18, 2016 u.s.
commission on civil rights by majority vote strongly condemn the recent state laws and proposals targeting members of the bisexual and transgender community for discrimination including north carolina's legislation forcing transgender people to use public top rooms based on sex and not according to their gender identities. the state laws attempting to delphi the protections of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment to individuals based on their gender identity jeopardizes the dignity and physical safety of transgender people to today we support the departments joint guidance on this issue. commission chair martin castro stated quote transgender students at the same rights as other students. transgender students present a threat to no one. the students are our children or their schools must not be allowed to strip them of their dignity and a first aid failed to afford the students their rights it is incumbent upon the federal government to intervene and protect those children that end quote.
the commission therefore stands with the department of education of department of justice as they ensure the promise of fair educational opportunities for every student regardless of their gender or transgender status. i'm happy to discuss this. any questions? commissioner herat? >> i don't have a question. >> ahead with discussion. >> i plan to vote against the motion. to put it plainly i believe the department of education is out of control on this issue. its pronouncements are in no way tethered to actual law. now the commission has followed suit and i believe this is an example of government aircraft pushing their own agenda and not title ix. the recently announced transgender guides require schools across the country to allow an tight ends, go boys who say they psychologically identifies girls to share toilets locker rooms and shower facilities with girls.
it also requires that girls athletic teams allow with anatomically -- in certain circumstances to participate. congress intended no such thing when it passed title ix in 1972. that statute or habits sex discrimination by federally funded schools colleges universities plain and simple. makes an exception or separate living facilities which was crystallized in a rule promulgated in 1975 which explicitly authorizes separate toilet locker room and shower facilities-based on sex, actual sex not the sex that they desire to be and not the gender a different con sept. to make a claim back in the 1970s the 92nd congress intended the american people understood title line to require schools to allow anatomical boys who viewed themselves as rosy as girls facilities would have been viewed as absurd.
indeed the department of education does not claim that. instead the departments argument insofar as it has one is that they just noticed that a 1990 -- 1989 case requires this result but no it doesn't. price white house concerned woman who allegedly had not then promoted because she was perceived as too aggressive. the core reason that if a male employee was the same aggressive personality would have been promoted than she then she has indeed discriminate against an account of her sex within the meaning of title vii. that's fine but let's apply that same line of reasoning in connection with the transgender guidance. it doesn't work to pose a school who is a student who is anatomically male but identifies as female. with that student a permit to use the girls facilities if that student had been in factory girl yes of course but that's different from pricewaterhouse because title ix and its
implementing regulations explicitly permits schools to provide separate facilities based on sex. more importantly note that the same, applying that same logic would also prove too much considering the case of an anatomically male student who was identified as male. that is the mask you and mail if you will. still true that if he had been female he would be allowed to use the girls facilities. we know that under the regulation, under the statutes separate facilities-based on sex are permitted. that takes the case outside pricewaterhouse situation. now note what i'm not saying here first i'm not saying a transgender student needs to conform to anybody's expectation with regard to sex. that is what freedom is all about but i'm also not saying
that title ix requires schools to have separate facilities-based on sex and by that again i mean anatomical and biological sex for locker rooms and shower purposes. they are not required to do that but the statute simply authorizes them to do so given that sex discrimination was exclusively for for bid and the talmud such an explicit authorization was necessary to allow the ordinary traditional separate facilities for the school district is well within its rights to choose to have unisex facilities or choose to have facilities-based on gender rather than sex so if they want to do it they can. what is inappropriate here is for the department of education to mandate that they must do it in a particular way. the schools are authorized under the actual title ix properly interpreted to do it any number of ways and sometimes that is what's necessary, the kind of flexibility that we need.
sometimes in a particular school particular school district particular students particular transgender student you would want to allow that student to remain with that students on anatomical sex group. maybe they're not having him a hard time. maybe the opposite sex group would be. maybe both groups would get that student our time in the best they could do is to provide a private facility like the faculty restroom or the faculty locker room but under the transgender guidance that flexibility disappears and instead one-size-fits-all. i very much object to this. i believe that's not authorized by title ix and i believe that this is the case of an out-of-control executive agency usurping the role of congress to make policy. title ix does not allow for this. >> the alleged evolution and change your really isn't that.
think oftentimes we see that how we interpret something today may be something different than what we interpret it to be in the past but this is not an idea that has popped up in the department of justice and the department of education or even hour -- because we were probably out of those agencies in condemning the north carolina and other laws than we did this in april. but if you really look back there is a history of this issue being addressed not only by the eoc and i know commissioner kirsanow had raised a point that should be applied here but a number of cases settled by the department on this basis. if you look back there's an excellent 1995 law review article from the university of pittsburgh law school entitled the central mistake of sex discrimination law is the disaggregation of sex from gender. they are clearly talks about the relationship between gender
identity and sex and the appropriateness of having disaggregated it because they are in a related and they have the same, they should be treated the same for title ix purposes and that is what's happening today. this not a concept that has come up in the obama administration that they wanted to pursue. this is a very thoughtful, legal argument that has been here for almost 20 years, 21 years. >> it's a profound anti-democratic view. >> understand you have your argument. you will have an opportunity to reply if you would like it we have here is a situation which enforces and i'm not saying you have done this commissioner but a lot of the media discussion and a lot of the public policy discussion around this is creating a sense of fear and our communities of our transgendered children and their transgender
citizens and fellow residents of fear that is unfounded, through this somehow it's in danger to allow the transgender community to use the restrooms as being required a mandated hearing that is just not true. hearkens back unfortunately to the early days of anti-segregation efforts when we were trying to create situations where black children white children could use the same restroom and there was a fear that mixing the races was going to be a threat to white women. if that same kind of fear that i see being created in this instance which is not the case. i think it is very clearly based on thoughtful, legal analysis. i think the fourth circuit case is very reasonable and the discussion of what an agency can do when it's regulations are ambiguous and it tries to clarify those regulations. it has the right to legal
deference and that is all we are saying here. this is what the department is saying and that is why we are moving forward to make her a clear that this commission combinations civil rights will support the protection of these transgender children. commissioner narasaki and the commission of hair at. >> thank you mr. chair. i had the opportunity to know and work with congressman -- before she passed in as many of you know she was one of the leading oysters that help reduce title ix protected tell you without a shred of doubt in my mind that she would in fact he very pleased with the interpretation of title ix. one of the challenges for transgender kids is the kind of discrimination they face of schools. 82% of transgender youth report they feel unsafe at school. 44%, almost half have been
pushed or shoved or otherwise physically abused. two-thirds have been bullied on line. two-thirds have had their property stolen or destroyed. there is a suicide. of transgender youth which is 10 times the national average. over 5% of the u.s. population has self-reported a suicide. that. jumps 10 to 20% for bisexual respondents. 41% of transgender nonconforming people surveyed have considered suicide. there's increased violence as the chairs noted. 72% of the hate violence homicide victims were transgendered women in 2013. transgendered women were on the sport times more likely to experience police violence. transgendered women are twice as likely to experience sexual violence. we heard extensive testimony at
a hearing on the employment nondiscrimination act last year. about the extensiveness of unemployment discrimination. i believe the department of education was well within its interpretation of the law and i very much welcome it and i think it's an important step forward to make sure that we are protecting our transgendered kids. >> commissioner herat he said he had something else you want to pay tonight i can want this is the same point, point, if you want to from policy on this issue going to congress to get that different policy is perfectly permissible but for an executive agency to take the statute is clear a space occur first two sacks. there is no doubt whatsoever that in 1972 when that statute passed congress meant sex not in the side -- sense of gender and that the term gender was adopted precisely because it means something different from sex.
we use the word sex to refer to the biological anatomical side of this issue and we use gender to talk about the cultural side of it. so someone who is anatomically male made nevertheless say hey identify with the fm aside in that regard my gender is female but my sex is male. that term is used in a very different way and meant to be a distinct category from sex and for decades we went on with that notion that gender is something different from sex. now suddenly surprised we are told it is the same that statutes derive there at the ready because they are passed by a legislature. they have to be interpreted according to the understanding in a democratic sense. now here do we have even any belief that most americans take the position that the department
of education has taken? i don't think so. ' there is any indication it tends to run in the opposite direction and that is for example the target department store announcing he was going to change its bathroom policy. over a million people signed a petition saying they objected to it. i will stand behind targets right to divide their bathrooms anyway they want and i also stand behind the right of shoppers to say well then i would use that restroom or i won't patronize the store. everybody's got that right in that region but with the freedom that we don't have its executive agencies do not have the right to command schools to do something that is not contained in the statute. >> commissioner. >> i would like to note commissioner herat that if congress decides that the eeoc has misinterpreted title ix they are in fact free to make that clear through legislation. as you know we are talking about policy.
vice chair in the new commissioner. >> yes mr. chair, simply want want to add to the discussion, the fact that the action that we are considering taking is appropriate and consistent with our role as a watchdog. again, it is appropriate for us to be having this conversation. >> commissioner cruz. >> thank you mr. chair. i concur with what the commissioner had to say and specifically with respect to the actions of ocr b&o wholesale with the powers of congress. also, i would note that the ocr guidance actually is discrimination. if you think about, the issue of
gender identity determines which bathroom you use. this is incoherent when you think of title ix and title vii discrimination. for example, the boy identifies as female he has a right of title ix to use the girls restrooms, showers, and that would be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to then bar of boy who identifies as a male who also using their facility. it's all based on gender identity. that would that would mean then, that this guidance promotes a discrimination unless all boys were allowed to use any bathroom they wanted, regardless of their gender identity and all girls
could use any bathroom or any other facility, shower facility they wanted, regardless of gender identity. otherwise you're discriminating on the basis of gender identity. and on a final note, i would say that i would caution that we be careful when we ignore the rule of law. because it is ben ortiz were most vulnerable when the government ignores the rule of law. one other and no, i'm i'm sorry, respectfully i would also caution inflating racial discrimination of washrooms, it is in fact discrimination. i think history shows that there are two significantly different concepts, both in theory and in practice. >> at the end of the day, what this commission over the last five and and half years has
attempted to do in many of the projects we have taken on is to examine the rights and provide statements and recommendations as to how to improve the protections for children. the first report we did under my chairmanship was bullying. based on all the protected classes included for the first time ever, ltd lgbt status. will elect at the issue of immigration last year, we looked at the issue of transgender individuals who are overwhelmingly the largest police force that holds those individuals in custody is immigration customs enforcement. we will continue to protect the rights for children, we will continue to protect the rights of our most vulnerable will also include members of our transgender community. the action the two departments have taken, contrary to my conservative colleagues have
indicated are thoughtful, reasoned, reasoned, legally grounded interpretations of the regulations. as commissioner said, if congress wants to change it, they are up in session right now capitol hill. they can do that. until such day as congress takes actions, this commission will join the departments of education and the department of justice, in making clear that if you are school district and you discriminate against transgender children in this manner, there will be consequences. i hope that today, the majority my commissioners join us in making that statement. >> i just add one more sentence? rule rule of law, you're going to miss it when it's gone. >> the rule of law something that conservative colleagues often race to try to block the rights of others, whether it is in the area of immigration reform, where the rule of law's race to keep 11,000,000 undocumented in the shadows, now you want to keep transgender
kids in the shadows as well? were not going to allow that, not under my watch. >> i respectfully take umbrage at your characterization of the conservative colleagues and that we want to keep people in the shadows. merely because we respect a lot to uphold the rule of law doesn't mean that we favor any form of discrimination or second-class status. i think that's really an insult to those of us who have an honest and bona fide concern about all of these issues, but also recognizing that it adheres to the rule of law and what separates america from all the other countries of the world. i will say again, you ignore the rule of law, you imperil the very folks you seek to protect. >> thank you commissioner. >> let me say i do not intend to personally. you.
i respected both you and commissioner harriet and i am pleased that we work together on a number of issues. it was not meant to be a personal improvement, but more of a policy impugn it. commissioner. >> mr. chairman, i would only point out that this is not a trivial matter. the notion of one needing to claim gender identity that differs from one's anatomical set is well-recognized in medical and psychological standards. this is not a trivial issue. it is not something to laugh
about were take lightly. these children who are experiencing this do need our protection. i am pleased that the federal government's, in the form of the department of education has enforced by the department of justice is exercising its lawful authority to intervene in this kind of situation. the fourth circuit did not believe this to be an ultra virus exercise of the legitimate authority of the department. so to suggest that one interpretation upholds the rule
of law as compared to another, i make no suggestion, we have a different opinion of what the law requires. but the view that is the invalidated by adoption of the chairman's resolution is a different interpretation of what the law requires but it is not extralegal it is not an application of the rule of law. in that assertion is one that i do resent. not as a matter of personal insult but i accord to your
interpretation of law i be interested to enjoy. >> thank you mr. chairman. unless there is another commissioner who has not yet spoken who wants to say something i will call to question. >> okay i'll call to question. commissioner, how do you book? >> no. >> mission are. how do do you a? >> i vote no, title ix authorizes local school districts to prove deploy a variety of efforts here and they cannot be enforced to apply only one method by the department of justice. >> mr. nurse i can have your vote. >> i vote yes and i applaud the administration for movie were. >> commissioner clad how do you book? >> yes. >> commissioner at number. >> yes.
>> commissioner yockey. >> yes. >> matta vice chair. >> yes. >> and i vote yes, that his successes and two nose. the motion passes. thank you. >> tonight on c-span two, part of this year's conference of the network of enlightened women, former speechwriter for margaret thatcher discusses the upcoming referendum on british membership in the european union. the u.s. commission on civil rights rules on the rights of transgender students in public schools. c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, philadelphia inquirer city hall reporter, talks about philadelphia's new one and a half cent per ounce tax on sugar sweetened and diet beverages. the first such tax imposed in a major u.s. city.
financial times economic editors sam fleming will discuss what came out of this week's federal reserve meeting and the overall outlook for the u.s. economy, including the potential impact of the brexit referendum. joshua horwitz, executive director of the gun violence will talk about his gun control issues in the wake of the orlando night attack. plus homegrown terrorism wishing misuse. the center for cyber and homeland security extremism program. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal", beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, saturday morning. joined the discussion. >> on american history tv on c-span three, this saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, we are live from gettysburg college in gettysburg pennsylvania for the annual
civil war institute summer conference. as authors, historians and professors examine topics such as people's refugee camps, and the post-civil war career of ulysses s grant. we'll also your conversation on the return of the confederate veteran of the origins of the lost cause. at ten p.m., with the approach of the anniversary of the space museum in july, real america will showcase a series of nasa films. this week and we will look at the 1966 film, science reporter. suited for space. >> you have to see some of our earlier models. here you have the l shepherd, so after the mercury is the -- this is very similar, in fact, identical to this it was warm by white in his excursions. >> that does look quite a bit different from the other see that we saw.
>> it is, this is one of the earlier models of the apollo suit. >> tracing the space suits from the mercury program to the apollo moon mission, sunday evening evening at 6:00 p.m. on american artifact, we go on a tour of the error and space museum to see the one-of-a-kind artifacts and request to go higher, faster and farther. >> this airplane in 19273600 miles and 33 and half hours from new york to paris. it was formed by charles lindbergh was a non- no pilot. his goal was to win the prize of 20 25,000 dollars for the first nonstop flight from new york to paris. so that was the impetus for this play. but what it represents in the history of aviation is part of the telling of the airplane in the transformation of the airplane from what the bright brothers created and how it transitioned over the 20s and
30s 12 called the modern airplane. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, schedule, go to c-span.org. >> @this year's network of enlightened women conference, panel of conservative authors and policy analyst talk about campus speech codes and student debt. this part of the conference also includes a q&a sessions with author and blogger, katie. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> i'm sorry never had that happen before. >> hello everyone. my name is megan, i am a writero and editor for politics.com. if you have not heard of red alert, it is a website for news and opinion of conservatives send written by young conservatives. we are sister publication of the
washington examiner, the weekly standard.rd and f we focus our reporting on next-generation issues. c we also take articles and editorial contributions from young journalists, college students, activists and young professionals across the country. some of the topics that are contributors frequently submit includes the politically correct campus culture and how often students are reluctant to express their conservative views in the classroom. the rise of trigger warnings, micro aggressions and students in the past few years have led many, including president obama to criticize the coddling of ouu college students. another topic that we study and report on with politics everyday student loan debt. the average college graduate today owes almost 30,000 dollars in student loan debt. the generation which is
currently the largest living generation is struggling to put payback the lawns loans and make purchases like buying cars and homes until they're financially independent. so these trends are likely to have long-term economic consequences if we are unable to get the situation under control. with all that said, i look forward to hearing from these three, highly knowledgeable panelist about our colleges and universities often fail a ow generation and what steps can be taken to address and hopefully improve the situation. >> i'm going to read your bios to you. first we have lindsay burke, she researches and writes on federal and state education issues.e ha
as a skillman following education policy and at the heritage foundation. she devotes her time in research into critical areas, education policy, reducing federal intervention and education, and empowering families with education choice. her commentary, research and op-ed seven. in various newspapers and magazines. she in various newspapers and magazines. she spoken on education reform issues across the country and internationally she has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. she is published evaluations of choice programs and options for s asc policy foundation such the institute for public policy and the friedman foundation for educational choice. she holds a bachelor's degree in politics from hollins university in virginia, and a master of teaching degree in foreign language education from the university of virginia. she of virginia. she is also currently studying education policy as a doctoral student. next is the campus reformher. editor-in-chief. prior to joining that he spent time as an editorial associate for national review online and a staff writer at the hill where he served as the intercollegiate study and institute, hen regularly appears on fox news, foxbusiness, and other outlets
to provide criminal event on campus. and finally, we have catherine, director of litigation, she graduated manga can lobby after career with a foreign service officer. she has visited budapest and moscow before the fall of the berlin wall gave her an appreciation to the power of free speech.uit fisher's on the six circuit court of appeals before starting work as an associate. after leaving she joined the appellate group at the u.s. program of department of justice. she joined joined fire as robert h jackson legal fellow. that was in october 2013 and took took over the day-to-day management of what is now stand at first free speech. she is is an edge and professor of appellate writing adjacent george mason school of law. she lives outside washington d.c. with her husband and son and her daughter recently graduated from green lake school. >> thank you megan.
so the title of our panel today is, trigger warning, space safe spaces in college debt. how colleges are fillingeg america. so a pretty big topic but i want to start, how did we get to the point where we even have a conversation about safe spaces and universities. so so i think there's a few things in play. you'll hear more about sterling and catherine about the climate and how we got to that point and i think how academia at large is responsible for. i want to start with two other issues that are often perhaps not attributed to the climate that we see today.te the first is this open spigot of federal subsidies that float universities today.oday. the second, this might be a little controversial and does not apply to anyone sitting in this room, but the fact that maybe college students just have too much free time on their hands.nt, this
so i'll take both of those in order, on the first point, this idea that we have an open spigot of federal student aid. we spend $238 billion annually, just at the federal level on federal student loans and grants and texted auctions, to finance higher education. $238 billion annually in federal funding. 33,000,000,000 of that is the federal pell grant program appellate grants or grants so they don't have to be repaid, but they are geared toward students from low-income families. that 33 billion-dollar pell grant program has historically been fairly targeted to low-income students but in 2007 some changes to the pell grant law meant that since that time. we have actually seen the number of recipients of the pell grant, double over the past three years. the federal government also now manages and originates at 93% of all student loans in the country.
93% of all student loans. so content the purposes we do not have a private lendingri market in the u.s. anymore. so does that mean if the federal government is managing an originating 93% of all student loans? means that when students default on their loans, which happens, the happens, the taxpayers are on the hook for picking up that cost. by the
when you take that together, we know that college loans make about 1.3 trillion. an overall outstanding debt in the country. that is more than credit card debt combined. with the federal government managing 93% of the loans, a big portion of the 1.3 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, when it goes into default gets picked up by taxpayers across the country. cost subsidies. i want to go through what impact of this ever increasing subsidies race has created. what we have seen first is that really easy access to federal
student aid, loans and grants have led to administrative bloat. not some, but a good amount of administrate bloat in higher education. just a couple points on that, a study from the gold water institute came out, a think tank based in arizona that found from 1993-2007 the number of full time administrators per hundred students grow 93% and the number of employees actually engaged in teaching instruction only grew by 18% over the same time period. so a significant increase in non-teaching administrative staff over that time period. that same study found that in 2007 it took 13.1 more employees to educate the same number of students than it took in 1993. again, a lot of that is driven
by non-teaching administrative staff increases. the reality is that american universities today are made up of less than half of their employees being teaching faculty and staff. the second, another impact of the federal subsidies race is that students are incurring debt to do what i see an arm race. we see facilities having plush facilities. you hear about the lazy rivers at the universities all of the time. one midwest university dispensed >> so one midwest university, we'll evenings out of this, of this, they spent $21 million to build a new gym that includes an elevated track for running, jogging, jogging, and a 22 person hot tub. college rank looks atb. universities that have the nicest and most plush facilities in the country. they found that one school in
the south where students can quote, enjoy some of the best competition pools in the united states, diving while diving wall hot tubs, sama's, a vortex, a lazy river and even waterfalls. if there's not enough excitement of the tiger grotto you can make your way to truman's pond which is a campus beach club which is the perfect place to relax in the sun while listening to music and socializing with fellow students. so it is driving a facilities arms race. no doubt about it. third, another problem withem federal subsidies, it is financing questionable research. when you c small thing. you might think that facility our races are big deal but when you consider some of the questionable research that taxpayer dollars are funding a should really get here era. it academic paper in the journal
and i think it one the word for the most ridiculous research paper in the world. it was entitled, glaciers, gender, and science, a feminist and science, a feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change. anybody else heard about this. >> a few people. a feminist glaciology framework. th they say feminist political ecology and the framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and up some ologies and dynamic social and ecological system, thereby leading leading to more just and equitable science and human interactions. en i mean, it's not satire. it it sounds like it would be satire, but you would expect research to look at some across
the country but this is actually paper that was published in the general this year. not only that, it was published with taxpayer dollars through a grant from the national science foundation. so facility arms race, questionable research, and the last thing i . out, this this ever-increasing flow of federal subsidies to universities as iev would argue, disincentive i'd students from working part-time to pay for their undergraduate careers. so the current system is not working, i would argue neither is a lot of college students working. if you look at data that just came out from the bureau of so one could make the
opportunity there is probably the opportunity for college opportunities to be doing more work. our higher education system is not working well for students. it is expensive, it is passing on significant cost to taxpayers, but it is also not preparing students. the six-year graduation rate is 60% and four year is 40%. that is an